OTA sucks by design
Bulk Daddy
The concept of putting HDTV over the area just like they are doing reg TV
is lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations
must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years.
The frequency ranges for HDTV OTA are far different than regular TV.
Translated: they don't carry as far and the signal strength wanders.
For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting
from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice.
For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the
stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV
decoder.
I talked with an engineer at one of the local TV stations. They know the
OTA HDTV idea sucks. They don't have the funding to do it right with
enough power and there are so very few people that can even get it, they
don't have any $ backing to be able to make it any better.
HDTV cable or sat for the majority of us is the only way we are going to
get reliable HD signals. Now only if Skinamax would jump on the HDTV
bandwagon, we could at least watch our softcore porn in HDTV.
Tell your cable or sat rep you want more HDTV channels and to dump the
CSPAN and other crud that 99% of us don't care about if they need more
bandwidth.
end rant
Corey
"Bulk Daddy" <uno...@unodominotest.unomaha.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns93F2E9E03F499un...@68.12.19.6...
Corey Says-
The Broadcasters in your area suck. I get HD just fine. If you are able to
get your fuzzy ghost plagued analogue you should be able to get a flawless
digital signal. Unless broadcasters in your area aren't interested in
progress, or don't know their heads from a hole in the ground. They have 2
or so more years to get their act together, or someone else will. end.
Bulk Daddy
news:M0T7b.3114$0j5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
> Corey Says-
>
> The Broadcasters in your area suck. I get HD just fine. If you are
> able to get your fuzzy ghost plagued analogue you should be able to
> get a flawless digital signal. Unless broadcasters in your area aren't
> interested in progress, or don't know their heads from a hole in the
> ground. They have 2 or so more years to get their act together, or
> someone else will. end.
>
>
I agree. Someone has done do. The sat and cable providers. Keep in mind
that local providers make most of their mula from ads. A chunk of them
would drop their analog OTA except they are required to do it. When
(hmmm) more stations go HDTV, you and others will buy in because you get
more choice/service. Will you stick to OTA for your nice HDTV set as your
only choice when you can get 20+ channels in HDTV via sat or cable? OTA
is a stop gap for a few until this happens. Local broadcasters know this.
Only in the center of major cities does it pay for them to do good OTA. I
really am glad your one of the few that gets good OTA from all of your
local broadcasters.
BTW: In no way does reception of the analogue signal mean that a person
can get a flawless digital signal.
Bob Miller
If what you say were true it would not be so bad but it is simple and
emphatically
not true. Getting a good NTSC signal is no guarantee that you will get
any DTV signal
at all.
Here in NYC Mark Schubin has a standing invitation to all to come to his
apartment where he gets good NTSC signals from 7 or 9 stations using a
bow tie antenna on top of his TV set. He gets two DTV stations one with
the antenna laying on the floor in a particular position and another
station with the antenna on a bookcase near the ceiling. This was before
9/11.
This is true across the country. Good NTSC does not mean good DTV. And
bad NTSC does not mean you can't get DTV. I now can get CBS, Fox and a
Spanish station (with numerous dropouts) with a directional antenna
aimed at the Empire State Building two miles away direct line of sight.
I can get no reasonable rreception of analog on any channel.
Neither predicts the other.
With COFDM I can get the reception from downtown Manhattan from a
transmitter at 400 ft. at 100 Watts of power NON line of sight. And I
can get it with a three inch antenna while driving at 70 miles an hour
on the FDR.
Quite a difference.
Bob Miller
I agree that OTA DTV in the US does "suck by design". That is a most
accurate statement made on the subject. Wish I had said it.
numeric
I get great reception. As I write I am watching solid reception from a
digital broadcaster located 108 miles distant; by contrast their analog
reception sucks. Your reception success depends on several factors; but
mainly, your antenna, the terrain, the transmitter power and transmitter
antenna height. Without knowing your local conditions, its difficult to
understand why you have reception problems. You might be blocked by a
mountain, for instance, or just too far from the TV transmitter. Keep in
mind that there are many broadcasters temporarily running very low
power, low antenna heights and using directional antennas which might
not be aimed in your direction.
Matthew L. Martin
\
>
> Here in NYC Mark Schubin has a standing invitation to all to come to his
> apartment where he gets good NTSC signals from 7 or 9 stations using a
> bow tie antenna on top of his TV set. He gets two DTV stations one with
> the antenna laying on the floor in a particular position and another
> station with the antenna on a bookcase near the ceiling. This was before
> 9/11.
And he has also published that he got HDTV reception from a Philadelphia
station.
Somehow, you always seem to forget that.
Matthew
--
<http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/>
Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.
Gary H
>transmitter at 400 ft. at 100 Watts of power NON line of sight. And I
>can get it with a three inch antenna while driving at 70 miles an hour
>on the FDR.
>Quite a difference.
Well with shortwave I can pick up a signal from across the world... but like
your COFDM it doesnt do me any good because it isn't HDTV.
Jeff B
I couldn't get so much as a meter reading on any
DTV station. Now, I get CBS, NBC, FOX locked in
solid. All I did was change antennas and experiment with
different orientations. I'm about 50 mile from
the xmitters, and they are low power.
Jeff
David
> All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap.
Hmm, I'm 30 miles from NYC, behind two mountain ranges. I can't get analog
OTA worth anything, way too much ghosting.
With a RCA DTC-100 and a $15 Radio Shack indoor antenna, I get _perfect_ OTA
HDTV reception.Tell us what kind of equipment you're using? Lotsa people
here can help you.
I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting
years ago seems to be just terrible.
Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup
uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself.
Chet Hayes
I agree that for many people the preferred solution is cable. I don't
agree that sat without OTA is a solution at all. The sats simply do
not have the bandwidth to carry all, or even most of the HDTV locals.
For the indefinite future, sat will provide the traditional cable
channels, with OTA used for the locals. The only thing that can
change that is either newer technology or more sats, neither of which
is on the horizon.
Larry Bud
> must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years.
Why don't you people become educated? The government requirements are
for DIGITAL TV, not HDTV. Get your facts straight.
> For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting
> from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice.
> For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the
> stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV
> decoder.
Then I guess you're just shit out of luck. How about moving out of
the boonies and into civilization?
Jeff Rife
> I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting
> years ago seems to be just terrible.
>
> Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup
> uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself.
Before I put up my antenna for HD, I kept hearing about how bad multipath
could be, and living in a typical suburb with lots of flat surfaces (houses)
and moving ones (trees) nearby, I expected no decent reception.
Like almost everyone else that tries it, though, once I get a signal of
more than about 50 on the meter, I get no dropouts at all, ever.
The best examples here locally are WB, PAX and one of the local PBS
stations:
Network Ch Call Distance Azimuth ERP kW
WB 50 WBDC 18.6 142 2450
WB 51 WBDC-DT 18.6 142 125
PAX 66 WPXW 27.1 190 3400
PAX 43 WPXW-DT 27.1 190 90
PBS 26 WETA 16.3 151 2290
PBS 27 WETA-DT 20.4 163 50
All are upper UHF (WB and PBS have side-by-side channels), and in the cases
of WB and PAX, the analog is a snowy mess, while the digital is clean and
clear at 2.5% to 5% of the power of the analog. PBS is OK on analog, but
perfect with their miniscule 50kW on digital.
The other thing to note is that my antenna points at 151 because that's
where most of the towers are grouped. Thus, the PBS digital is off-axis
and still fine. PAX shows just how good digital transmission can be even
with a very directional antenna at 39° off axis.
--
Jeff Rife | "You may find this strange, but I think body
301-916-8131 | piercing is a good thing. It gives us a
| quick way to tell that people ain't right,
| just by lookin' at 'em."
| -- Hank Hill, "King of the Hill"
Rog
I 've seen many posts recently about the best OTA tuner (Sam 151 versus
Zenith 420). Hopefully my evaluation will answer some questions. I think
it's important to say that my criteria was a receiver that could pull in
stations over 60 miles away. I also have a Wineguard 8200P (deep
fringe...also when you compare this antenna with the best CM has to offer
you'll see on the specs that the WG has higher gain on all channels) with
pre-amp and rotor. First, I hooked up the Zenith and was only able to
receive one HD station which is 40 miles away. That's it! Next I hooked up
the Sammy and was able to pull in and lock on two additional channels both
with a distance of over 60 miles. The day was partly overcast and about 80
degrees and dry. The rotor was tuned to the exact azimuth needed to receive
each channel for both receivers. Also interesting is the signal meter on the
zenith didn't even move when trying to tune in the 60 mile plus stations. I
live in Jackson Michigan and was able to pick up Flint, Michigan, Lansing,
Michigan and Toledo Ohio. I couldn't hit Detroit with either receiver
because of huge trees in front of my antenna to the East. The one thing I
did like about the Zenith is the fact that it allowed another antenna
connector for anolog.....
A couple other points the WG is to large to ship UPS so you're better off
finding a dealer nearby to purchase. I paid $204.00 dollars. Also, I found
the Winegard pre-amp AP-8275 the highest gain pre-amp available (compare
against Channel Master). I have no affiliation with Winegard or Samsung just
reporting my experience. Needless to say I took the Zenith back to Circuit
City. Hope this helps someone out their in the deep fringe. By the way HD
reception is unbelieveable on my 65 Inch Hitachi.
"Bulk Daddy" <uno...@unodominotest.unomaha.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns93F2E9E03F499un...@68.12.19.6...
Polecat
has been on my 40 ft pole for some ten years. Hooked up the new set, and it
gets all the dtv channels including the low power/low budget farthest away
East St. Louis ch 46. Go figure!
--
Jim Padgett
St. Clair, MO.
Larry Bud <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5db363e0.03091...@posting.google.com...
Chet Hayes
I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
digital doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when that is only
viable if you can receive an adequate signal. Apparently you have
either not seen or choose not to believe many of the problems people
have reported here getting decent reception in many parts of the
country, most of them not boonies. Even then, it only gives you the 4
major networks, plus some random PBS. Cable can provide all that plus
the 100 other channels that people are watching. I see cable as the
major delivery vehicle, with OTA being used by sat customers for the
locals.
Corey
"Chet Hayes" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b81a861b.03091...@posting.google.com...
Corey Says-
Maybe but my analogue is substandard and my digital is excellent. end.
>
>
>
> I agree that for many people the preferred solution is cable. I don't
> agree that sat without OTA is a solution at all. The sats simply do
> not have the bandwidth to carry all, or even most of the HDTV locals.
> For the indefinite future, sat will provide the traditional cable
> channels, with OTA used for the locals. The only thing that can
> change that is either newer technology or more sats, neither of which
> is on the horizon.
Corey Says-
I like satellite better than cable. It is less expensive. Cable has to much
noise. Cable is different from one location to another. The HD package I
have with Directv (about 4 channels) is worth it. I can also get HD on 1
HBO and 1 Showtime channel.
The only good thing about cable is the fact that you can run it to every
room in the house. And if your really sick the toilet room. end.
Steve Bryan
Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Here in NYC Mark Schubin has a standing invitation to all to come to his
> apartment where he gets good NTSC signals from 7 or 9 stations using a
> bow tie antenna on top of his TV set. He gets two DTV stations one with
> the antenna laying on the floor in a particular position and another
> station with the antenna on a bookcase near the ceiling. This was before
> 9/11.
How can this have any current relevance? The transmition towers for all
the DTV stations were being deployed on the twin towers and the entire
enterprise was set back for years which has to be the least significant
outcome of that event. Two years ago the situation here in the Twin
Cities was far less favorable. Now there are ten digital stations on the
air. Five carry HD content and it appears that three more will sometime
in the next year. I live in a suburb and can receive all of it with an
antenna in my attic. I haven't gone in to details and it isn't all
perfect but the detractors don't have a leg to stand on based on this
admittedly anecdotal evidence.
Don't be too casual about the antenna. I couldn't bring myself to put
one on the roof for asthetic reasons plus I was fairly certain my wife
wouldn't put up with it. But that attic antenna was carefully aimed and
tweaked to get the best signal. One evening of tedious work and now I
can watch any of ten digital stations and it does a good job for the
NTSC stations also.
I think it is worth suggesting that in some locations there might be
some rather diffident efforts being made to justify those generous
licenses that have been granted. Get on the phone, write them letters
and e-mail. Maybe it's even worth a call or message to the FCC. This
stuff works and it isn't just better than the NTSC signals, the
resolution of the HD programs blows away what you can get with DVD's and
it's free!
Jeff Rife
> Read this about the antenna:
>
> fringe...also when you compare this antenna with the best CM has to offer
> you'll see on the specs that the WG has higher gain on all channels) with
> pre-amp and rotor.
If you want no-holds-barred performance for UHF, try:
http://www.antennaperformance.com/products2.asp?ProductID=81&CategoryID=2
It has been used with a standard PC-card HDTV receiver to pick up stations
over 1,000 miles away:
http://www.dxfm.com/TV_log_Digial.htm
YMMV, of course.
--
Jeff Rife | "Five thousand dollars, huh? I'll bet we could
301-916-8131 | afford that if we pooled our money together...
| bought a gun...robbed a bank...."
| -- Drew Carey
Matthew L. Martin
> I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
> solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
> not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
> digital doesn't make any sense to me.
According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
numeric
Chet Hayes wrote:
>
> Even then, it only gives you the 4
> major networks, plus some random PBS. Cable can provide all that plus
> the 100 other channels that people are watching. I see cable as the
> major delivery vehicle, with OTA being used by sat customers for the
> locals.
In this area the cable company recommends OTA for HDTV. They provide no
HDTV whatsoever and no plans in the foreseeable future. If your
objective is for HDTV and the cable company does not provide HDTV then
the number of cable viewers is irrelevant. The area is great for OTA
reception and is easy to receive all the major networks plus several
minor ones; not a surprise that the cable company is reluctant to add
HDTV to their offering. Besides I can get two of each network affiliate.
The news programming is unique and many times sports programming. When
its game time, the same network may be offering different games form
each affiliate.
Chet Hayes
> Chet Hayes wrote:
>
> > I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
> > solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
> > not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
> > digital doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
> of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
>
> Matthew
I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family
that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these
40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement.
I see lots of reference to numbers in the range of these from JD
Powers:
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/hardware/article/0,,3066711,00.html
where cable has 60% market share, sat 17%. I would think that would
leave OTA at about 23%, which sounds reasonable.
And whatever the OTA only market share is, it will only decrease over
time. On consumers wish list, clearly more channels than offered by
OTA is a top priority.
Chet Hayes
That's great for an interim solution. But it doesn't get you HBO,
Discovery, etc or any of the other cable channels that will be
available as we move forward. The real focus here should be on giving
the cable franchise a kick in the ass. If they won't give you HDTV,
the municipality should toss them out and get an operator that will.
Bulk Daddy
>
> According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of
40%
> of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
>
> Matthew
>
Ah Matthew, you are always entertaining by saying something like studies
say...
Then saying to look it up for ourselves.
OK, I looked it up. Here are a couple links:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1544&sequence=4
Says that in 1998(!) that 67% of households had cable TV service.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/090703/wor_07tvdeth.shtml
Says that today 86% of Americans have cable or sat.
According to studies frequently discussed here, Matthew makes up 73% of
the figures he uses ;-)
Thumper
wrote:
>"Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in message news:<01943d0d7753b6aa...@news.teranews.com>...
>> Chet Hayes wrote:
>>
>> > I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
>> > solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
>> > not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
>> > digital doesn't make any sense to me.
>>
>> According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
>> of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
>I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family
>that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these
>40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement.
>
I don't have the links but there was an article in our local paper a
couple of months ago that said that roughly 60% of the houses passed
with cable actually subscribe. I thought as you that it would be more
than that.
Thumper
Jeff Rife
> "Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in
> news:01943d0d7753b6aa...@news.teranews.com:
>
> >
> > According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of
> 40%
> > of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
> >
Meaningless links for the stat that is being talked about.
> http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1544&sequence=4
> Says that in 1998(!) that 67% of households had cable TV service.
>
> http://www.charleston.net/stories/090703/wor_07tvdeth.shtml
> Says that today 86% of Americans have cable or sat.
Right, and before I got my DirecTiVo, I had satellite, but one of my two
TVs had OTA antenna as its only input. This is the stat that is important...
not how many houses have cable, but how many TVs have OTA as their input.
Likewise, before I could easily record locals off satellite (again,
DirecTiVo), I had 3 VCRs which had only OTA for input. Sure, they fed
a TV that had satellite as one of its inputs, but at any given moment, it
was far more likely that I was watching something recorded from OTA than
live from satellite. DirecTiVo has changed that, but then recording HD on
my PC from OTA has changed it back a lot.
--
Jeff Rife |
301-916-8131 | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TeriHatcher.gif
Bob Miller
How do you know if it is HD or not? It technically could be.
Bob Miller
The British system is ancient COFDM 2K and yet they are outselling 8-VSB
receivers 1000 to one in a market 1/16th the size. They only cover part
of the country with transmitter powers that are minuscule compared to
the power in the US. They are using 2K instead of 8K COFDM. Still they
are selling receivers at the rate of 50,000 a week.
There is a forum that gives a very good overall look at the UK at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3
In a market that will see 3 million receivers by the end of this year
and which only started broadcasting last November 1st there are hundreds
of complaints? Amazing.
However of the 7000 + post on uk,tch.digital-tv I do not see that many
complaints. What I see are people inquiring about all kinds of problems
including old receivers from a number of years ago. No general problem
and very low prices for receivers.
Bob Miller
> Chet Hayes wrote:
>
>> I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
>> solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
>> not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
>> digital doesn't make any sense to me.
>
>
> According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
> of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
>
> Matthew
>
I know because I have three of them that have not been plugged in for at
least the last five years.
How exactly did they count these TV sets?
Charles Tomaras
news:<01943d0d7753b6aa...@news.teranews.com>...
> > Chet Hayes wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
> > > solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
> > > not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
> > > digital doesn't make any sense to me.
> >
> > According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
> > of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
> >
> > Matthew
>
>
> I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family
> that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these
> 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement.
I have a number of friends without cable or satellite. I'm actually surprised at
how many people out there find spending $30 or more a month for television
unconscionable. To tell you the truth, if the Seattle Mariner's baseball games
were available OTA instead of on Fox Sports Northwest I could see myself getting
by just fine with the 9+ digital channels I'm receiving OTA in my urban
location.
Matthew L. Martin
> Gary H wrote:
>
>> Well with shortwave I can pick up a signal from across the world...
>> but like
>> your COFDM it doesnt do me any good because it isn't HDTV.
>>
>>
> How do you know if it is HD or not? It technically could be.
>
The question is: Is it HD? The question is not: Can it be HD?
Answer the question.
Matthew L. Martin
> "Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in message news:<01943d0d7753b6aa...@news.teranews.com>...
>
>>Chet Hayes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
>>>solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
>>>not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
>>>digital doesn't make any sense to me.
>>
>>According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
>>of all TVs in the US are OTA only.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
>
> I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family
> that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these
> 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement.
>
Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households:
From FCC-01-389A1.doc
"A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by
Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are
approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An
additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD
service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or
approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive
broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent
of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all
homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen
estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are
broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that
approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are
broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes
exceeding $75,000".
Bulk Daddy
news:MPG.19cc380f3...@news.nabs.net:
>
> Meaningless links for the stat that is being talked about.
>
> Right, and before I got my DirecTiVo, I had satellite, but one of my
> two TVs had OTA antenna as its only input. This is the stat that is
> important... not how many houses have cable, but how many TVs have OTA
> as their input.
>
> Likewise, before I could easily record locals off satellite (again,
> DirecTiVo), I had 3 VCRs which had only OTA for input. Sure, they fed
> a TV that had satellite as one of its inputs, but at any given moment,
> it was far more likely that I was watching something recorded from OTA
> than live from satellite. DirecTiVo has changed that, but then
> recording HD on my PC from OTA has changed it back a lot.
>
The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation.
The point is not does OTA work for some people. Of course it does for for
some folks. I could easily take three of the four TV's in my house and
disconnect them from the cable and say "see, this what I did in my one
house out of the millions of homes". Or I could go to radioshack with my
ENG friends and create something that works over my home electrical
wiring with my VCR as the input. Who cares? Just because I can get it to
work does not mean it is a good design.
The point is that Most people (no, not everyone in every case) are going
to want more channels of HD and not just a few like we have now AND a lot
of people can't easily get all of the HD OTA channels in their area, even
if they can get regular broadcast stuff.
People can put up all of the theory they want. OTA is a bad design that
services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good
reliable OTA HD signals.
And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD.
And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels
for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels. So I get HBO
HD, and all the locals and HD Discovery channels. I do have to pay $8 a
month for the digital cable box connection. So even if I could get good
OTA HD, why would I bother when I can get all the stuff available?
And for those that are doing and getting good OTA HD, we really are glad
that your are satisfied with what you get.
David
or a motorscooter ruins the reception? The complaints are there, many of
them, I've seen them and so have you.
This "ancient" system is what you were pushing on the AVS forum, before you
were thrown off. And it wasn't even HDTV!
Did you lose a lot of money investing in Zenith?
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F62BF3B...@earthlink.net...
David
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3
Thanks, Bob. The "Digital Spy" forum is very interesting.
I did a forum search there for "interference" and saw 147
postings/complaints since last February.
The forum members cite many interference sources, including:
Washing machines, motorbikes, streetlights, trucks, thermostats, fish tank
heaters, halogen lamps, CCTV cameras, refrigerators, loose connections of
plugs into sockets, sunlamps, etc. etc.
I've never seen a posting anywhere where 8VSB exhibited these kind of
problems, even at very low signal strengths.
That English COFDM system is the same one you were trying to shove down AVS
forum members throats... what a joke.
Jeff Rife
Yes, they are.
You ridiculed someone for "making up statistics". Then, you went out
and found some statistics that were unrelated to the "made-up" statistics
in an attempt to further ridicule the person for not providing the
information themselves.
I notice that you have not responded to the post what that same person
you ridiculed *has* provided those very statistics, and they show exactly
what was claimed.
> The point is not does OTA work for some people.
Right. The point is that OTA works for a *lot* of people, even the ones
who also have other sources of signal (like cable, satellite, etc.), and
it does so on a daily basis.
> The point is that Most people (no, not everyone in every case) are going
> to want more channels of HD and not just a few like we have now AND a lot
> of people can't easily get all of the HD OTA channels in their area, even
> if they can get regular broadcast stuff.
Agreed, since only about 1% to 2% of all homes have even *one* ATSC receiver.
Most of the people who can easily get analog OTA don't have a hope in hell
of getting ATSC right now because they don't have a receiver. On the other
hand, with a few exceptions, anyone who has seriously tried to receive ATSC
can do so quite easily *if* they already can receive analog on similar
channels with any amount of clarity. Some of the exceptions are totally
unrelated to ATSC, like the Chicago channel 2 analog/channel 3 digital
fiasco: the digital channel is being overloaded from the adjacent and
colocated analog channel.
On the other hand, if people are willing to accept snow-laden analog and
call that "reception", it's quite likely that they won't get digital,
since it is an all or nothing affair, although I have several channels
that are unwatchable on analog yet their digital channels are clear as
a bell...one even has adjacent channels for analog and digital.
> And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD.
OTA analog doesn't give you HBO, ESPN, TBS, A&E, etc. What's your point?
> And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels
> for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels.
Today, they might be willing to do this to suck you in. Since MSOs are
being charged extra for Discovery HD Theater and ESPN-HD, it's only a
matter of time before they start passing that on to you.
> So I get HBO
> HD, and all the locals and HD Discovery channels. I do have to pay $8 a
> month for the digital cable box connection. So even if I could get good
> OTA HD, why would I bother when I can get all the stuff available?
Because they already seem to be overcharging people? Sure, you get the
HD for that $8/month, but there are a lot of other people with digital
cable who don't, and their $8 is subsidizing you.
--
Jeff Rife |
301-916-8131 | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Evaluation.jpg
Bulk Daddy
> Bulk Daddy (uno...@unodominotest.unomaha.edu) wrote in
> alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> You ridiculed someone for "making up statistics". Then, you went out
> and found some statistics that were unrelated to the "made-up"
> statistics in an attempt to further ridicule the person for not
> providing the information themselves.
>
> I notice that you have not responded to the post what that same person
> you ridiculed *has* provided those very statistics, and they show
> exactly what was claimed.
Two different ways of looking at the numbers. I was looking at the number
of homes and a few others were looking at the number of TV's. Matthew
responded with source info on the way he was figuring up things and so
thanks to him and no need to follow up.
>
>> The point is not does OTA work for some people.
>
> Right. The point is that OTA works for a *lot* of people, even the
> ones who also have other sources of signal (like cable, satellite,
> etc.), and it does so on a daily basis.
Agree with you on that. But the FCC could have set some guidelines for
broadcast strength or have used technology that would allow the signal to
carry as far as a simular strength reg broadcast signal.
>
>
> On the other hand, if people are willing to accept snow-laden analog
> and call that "reception", it's quite likely that they won't get
> digital, since it is an all or nothing affair, although I have several
> channels that are unwatchable on analog yet their digital channels are
> clear as a bell...one even has adjacent channels for analog and
> digital.
We are splitting hairs here. One's definition of 'good' analog signal will
vary quite a bit. I grant you that someone watching a 70% analog fuzz
picture should not expect a good signal.
HDTV signals are a higher frequency and so you have to push more power, in
some cases a huge amount more power for them to reach as far as a standard
TV signal. Even then the higher freq stuff just does not travel as far over
hills, etc.
>
>> And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD.
>
> OTA analog doesn't give you HBO, ESPN, TBS, A&E, etc. What's your
> point?
The point is that some OTA broadcasters are not going to toss more money
than they have to in to HD OTA, because they know that their customers that
spend the bucks for an HD able set are in most cases going to want these
other services and can get them plus their local stuff that way.
>
>> And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD
>> channels for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels.
>
> Today, they might be willing to do this to suck you in. Since MSOs
> are being charged extra for Discovery HD Theater and ESPN-HD, it's
> only a matter of time before they start passing that on to you.
So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to keep
prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then they could
jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I can't get but one
good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles away.
If they really wanted me and a lot of other people as an OTA customer, they
would start tossing up more towers, higher power, and each station would
work togeather so their OTA antennas were in the same direction.
If not, then they only care about reaching a subset of their customers.
Keep in mind that in a way we all pay for OTA. We pay by watching more
commercials and the other ways that local stations have to earn money to
pay for this stuff. I'm also thinking that a lot of those OTA only folks
just don't have the funds to pay $300 for an OTA HDTV decoder.
OTA is great for some people.
For a lot of others it just plain sucks by design.
Chet Hayes
OK, take your pick. Counting homes, OTA is 14 to 20%. Counting TV
sets, its, 30%. Either way, it's not 40%, it's a minority and as
Michael Powell himself pointed out, clearly declining over time.
Steve Bryan
Bulk Daddy <uno...@unodominotest.unomaha.edu> wrote:
> OTA is a bad design that
> services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good
> reliable OTA HD signals.
This is the quote with which I am having trouble. You are basing this on
what? What we get here on newsgroups and the web are interesting
anecdotes. The impression I get is that ATSC reception is already better
than the NTSC reception it is replacing. This is with many stations
using provisional towers and lower power levels than they will
eventually use. Also there is a new generation of 8-VSB demodulation
silicon that is distinctly superior to what was available when I got my
ATSC PCI receiver card (check the web site: www.linxelectronics.com).
I also have an NTSC receiver card and should mention that since putting
up a ChannelMaster antenna in the attic of my suburban home I get pretty
good reception with it also. I'm not in a fringe location and can't
meaningfully speculate about people in that situation. But others who
are have reported better reception with ATSC than existing NTSC
reception.
My suspicion is that before long cable companies will have to market
against a rising perception of their diminishing worth. Their initial
justification was to compensate for lousy NTSC reception which will be
ancient history as the transition to ATSC is completed. Their dead last
position in customer service (how many industries have to be compelled
by law to answer customer calls?). The premium channels that have
diluted their offerings year after year (I remember when the movie
selection on HBO was excellent). The original programming on HBO is a
big exception but can be purchased for much less in DVD's by the patient
consumer. If I could cherry pick just HBO that would be a great
temptation but minimum price pushes $30/month and I'm sure that would
just be camel's nose in the tent.
With five channels already providing an increasing amount of HD
programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling
need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free.
Bozo the Clown
> commercials and the other ways that local stations have to earn money to
> pay for this stuff.
Well, I see just as many, or more commercials on most cable channels.
You get to pay twice (once monthly fee, once through commercials) for
cable! Excepting HBO and like, of course, but those stations run
$10/mo or so.
> I'm also thinking that a lot of those OTA only folks
> just don't have the funds to pay $300 for an OTA HDTV decoder.
These will drop rapidly in cost, and become integrated into sets
before too much longer. Long term, the cost of tuners will not be an
issue. Although it most certainly is today.
> OTA is great for some people.
> For a lot of others it just plain sucks by design.
Agreed. Everyone's needs are different. It's pretty silly to assume
that what's true for you (or me) can be applied to everyone. For
people outside of reasonable distances from the towers, OTA probably
does suck.
Cable/Satellite clearly has content advantages, but I know plenty of
people (esp single people living alone) for whom $600/year just isn't
worth it for TV.
Bulk Daddy
@news.verizon.net:
> Bulk Daddy <uno...@unodominotest.unomaha.edu> wrote in
> news:Xns93F58E27CE471un...@68.12.19.6...
>
>> So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to
>> keep prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then
>> they could jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I
>> can't get but one good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles
>> away.
>>
>
> so in the end, doesn't it really just come down to the fact that you
> can't get OTA so you think it sucks?
>
> Well I have directv and when are they going to have locals (i.e.,
> broadcast networks) in HD? Not for a lonnnggg time. They have to do
> compression and stat muxing just for the few HD channels they have. My
> cable co. is waiting for who knows what. ASTC works NOW for me and
> goodness, it's free too. (Ironically, NSTC reception is unwatchable in
> my house.)
>
And so for you, HD directv sucks by design. There is no "technology"
reason that you can not be able to get ABC, NBC, etc with your locals in
HDTV. Hell you have to pay directTV and then screw with an OTA HD
antenna. That really bites.
And so I will admit that the suck factor increases for myself and others
who can't get the magic combination of multiple channels of reliable OTA,
and for those that get it, it is a wonderful thing.
So yes, if you get OTA then for you it does not suck and it is wonderful.
Still, today with current technology, a LOT more people should be able to
get OTA that can not. I speak for a large group of people that will never
get a bunch of OTA signals. And it is in part because they did not design
it for good/extended coverage. And so yes, for a bunch of us it really
does suck by design. There are a lot of technologies like spread spectrum
or a bunch of others along with improved support from the FCC for higher
power levels that would have made OTA HDTV much better.
I'm amazed at how many folks that are getting good HD OTA that take
offense at these statements about OTA. We don't want you to like your OTA
any less. We really are happy that you get good HD pictures. HDTV is
great stuff. You get it for free and you should enjoy the hell out of it.
Also think of all of the people in apartments or in neighborhoods that
can't put an antenna on roof. A lot of them can get regular broadcasts
but not OTA HD. It really does suck that new technology like HD is not
available to them by way of free OTA. Regular OTA TV broadcasts will go
through things like walls better than an OTA HD broadcast.
A local broadcast engineer I talked with said the following about their
dealings with the FCC and OTA HDTV:
It's a joke. There are a lot of reception problems with FCC assigned
power levels being too low. Then the FCC tells us we cannot put our HD
signal at a lower spectrum level, even for a short period of time. So a
lot of our viewers are the ones that suffer with all of this.
Chet Hayes
> programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling
> need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free."
But apparently most people do. For decades most people could receive
std tv OTA for free. Yet cable and sat together have 70 to 85% market
share, depending on how you count, with OTA continuing a steady
decline.
HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD
offerings of both the locals and premium channels and it will be
there, indeed it will have to be there, for HD to become mainstream.
BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the
only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS
Steve Bryan <steve...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<steve_bryan-46A3...@corp.supernews.com>...
Matthew L. Martin
So you didn't read:
"over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set"
Or you chose to ignore it.
Leonard Caillouet
Even if it is 10% it is foolish to think that OTA is going to go away
completely anytime soon. We have it. It works well for many people. Where
it does not or other better options come available, people will use them.
What is the problem. By the experience that I have seen of many consumers
OTA HD is working pretty well. If a few people have had a different
experience why is anyone surprised. Isn't that to be expected with any
technology.
Also, the context of Matthew's citation of the numbers was pretty clear.
Nit-picking the statistics is not making anyone's argument any more
convincing. Argue with his points guys, if you have a convincing argument
to make.
Leonard Caillouet
Bob Miller
saying that this early COFDM system was far superior to 8-VSB. It has and is
proving to be a vastly superior system. The early receivers were subject to
interference by impulse noise because the manufacturers were not aware of
how much of a problem it would be. This was solved with later receivers.
Most problems of reception have to do with these older receivers.
I always championed the COFDM 8K system which is far superior to the 2K or
8-VSB, modulation systems. It is the 8K system that was picked by both
Australia and Taiwan for HDTV after they reversed their decision for 8-VSB
and switched to COFDM 8K DVT-t.
We should have done the same then. We didn't then so when we do switch it
will be far more costly.
Since I am an advocate of COFDM and Zenith is the chief proponent of 8-VSB
why would I have ever invested in Zenith?
"David" <dav...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hcudnQ1Mrap...@comcast.com...
Bob Miller
If broadcasters had truly been interested in designing a great broadcast
system to replace NTSC they would have done a number of things.
First they would have been heavily involved in the design and testing of the
various parts of the proposed systems. Broadcasters were not engaged or
minimally engaged in any part of the process. They left it up to lawyers,
politicians , accountants and salesmen of the CEA, NAB and other special
interest such as Zenith.
They would have considered changing the compression codec at the same time
or delayed the transition till a better codec was developed since they were
available and could have been considered. Check out how Mpeg2 was decided
on.
If broadcasters had been engaged they would have stood up for a far superior
modulation, COFDM, instead of caving at the first sign of pressure from the
special interest and Congress. ABC, NBC who initially supported COFDM for
example caved. Most broadcast engineers were either not up to evaluating
modulation or were not listened to by their corporate masters who have
regulated them to the back room where they are supposed to keep the OTA
broadcast going primarily so that the broadcasters can continue to qualify
for must carry.
Broadcasters would have decided to change the method of broadcasting from
single stick high power to Single Frequency Networks of low power
transmitters with on channel repeaters. They would have petitioned the FCC
to allow them to co-locate their broadcast facilities with other
broadcasters so that cost and coverage would be optimized.
And more...
None of these things were done because broadcasters do not care about
broadcasting, they care about must carry on cable.
All the decisions that were made by the FCC, NAB, CEA were made for their
own self interest. No decisions were made based on the good of the OTA
public. Carefully read the following Brazilian comments. They complain the
8-VSB is made for cheap broadcasters at the expense of the receiving public
while COFDM cost the broadcaster more but saves the public a bundle.
Brazil summed it up well when they initially rejected 8-VSB after openly and
extensively testing 8-VSB and COFDM.
Here are their conclusions.
Chapter VI - Conclusions
Considering:
. That the COFDM modulation presents a better performance in severe
multipath situations verified in areas densely peopled;
. That the COFDM modulation allows the implementation of transmission in
High Definition with adequate robustness;
. That there are solutions in the COFDM modulations that out perform the
8VSB modulation in the impulsive noise immunity;
. That only the COFDM modulation allowed a 100% reception of the spots
within the 10 Km radius. This radius was a function of the used ERP; bigger
ERPs will correspond to bigger radiuses with 100% reception;
. That the results of the lab tests suggest that only the COFDM modulation
allows the reception in areas not reached by any system, through the use of
Single Frequency Networks;
. That the 4 dB advantage in the signal-noise ratio of the 8VSB modulation
did not turn out to cause better coverage;
. That the disadvantageous results of the relation between the peak power
and the average power have a low relevance, once they are costly only for
the broadcasters, not the population;
. That the noted disadvantage observed in the COFDM modulation to the
protection relation for adjacent channels can be eliminated by introducing
filters with better rejection characteristics in the receivers;
. That all the results of co-channel interference are not significant to the
planning of any of the tested modulations;
. That when a point of reflection is moving, the COFDM modulation shows
better performance enabling even mobile reception;
. That the 8VSB receivers developed during the 2nd semester of 1999 and made
available to the tests, until now, in despite of the use of sophisticated
equalizing techinique, did not show real improvements in
practical situations;
. That the COFDM modulation presents flexibility in the solving of coverage
problems;
. The objective of optimizing the reception, duplicating or improving the
current analog systems coverage ;
. That it is indispensable the use of a modulation that maximize the free
off air reception;
We conclude that the COFDM modulation, besides being technically superior,
is more adequate to the Brazilian conditions than the 8VSB modulation and,
therefore, we suggest to Anatel that it determines that the Digital
Television system to be adopted in Brazil must use the COFDM modulation.
We can observe that the disadvantages shown by the COFDM modulation systems
are solvable, even though it implies additional cost to the broadcasters.
However, the mentioned disadvantages shown by the systems with 8VSB
modulation picture the boundaries inherent to the modulation itself. Only
the consumer, who will need reception systems - antenna and receiver - more
sophisticated, in the same proportion that his location may require,
shoulders the onus of the flaws in the 8VSB modulation. On the other hand,
only the broadcaster who, in certain situations, will have to implement
transmission systems more powerful or sophisticated shoulders the onus of
the difficulties in the COFDM
modulation, all solvable.
Among the possible systems that use the COFDM modulation, we believe that it
is still necessary the accomplishment of further and complimentary tests,
besides the market issue consideration, such as the evaluation of the impact
that
adopting on of the available systems will have on the national industry, and
the timing of commercial availability of each system, so to make the final
decision on the standard to be considered.
Therefore, we will use the additional period that Anatel has conceded, that
will be until the end of April, so we can develop the activities, the
experiments and the necessary studies to reach a final positioning about
which Digital TV system we consider more adequate to be adopted in Brazil.
"darius" <no...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:70097052995.8554256396.37877@news.verizon.net...
> Bulk Daddy <uno...@unodominotest.unomaha.edu> wrote in
> news:Xns93F58E27CE471un...@68.12.19.6...
>
> > So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to
> > keep prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then
> > they could jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I
> > can't get but one good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles
> > away.
> >
>
David
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:NUZ8b.7729$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I was not "pushing" the 2K COFDM system that they have in the UK. I was
> saying that this early COFDM system was far superior to 8-VSB.
It is obviously not superior to 8VSB. There are actually cccurrent BBC and
Freeview websites that admit interference problems.
>It has and is proving to be a vastly superior system.
Another boldfaced lie.
>The early receivers were subject to
> interference by impulse noise because the manufacturers were not aware of
> how much of a problem it would be. This was solved with later receivers.
> Most problems of reception have to do with these older receivers.
Another lie. There are hundreds of interference complaints since last
February, most with new receivers.
> I always championed the COFDM 8K system which is far superior to the 2K
or
> 8-VSB, modulation systems. It is the 8K system that was picked by both
> Australia and Taiwan for HDTV after they reversed their decision for 8-VSB
> and switched to COFDM 8K DVT-t.
And who here is going to care? 8VSB was chosen by the USA and it works
perfectly. You "championed" COFDM only for your personal business schemes.
> We should have done the same then. We didn't then so when we do switch it
> will be far more costly.
Who's talking about switching, besides one lonely, despairing forum poster?
Nobody in America is putting their HDTV equipment out on the curb, just
because YOU want to switch to COFDM.
Do you have any idea what a laughing stock you are?
> Since I am an advocate of COFDM and Zenith is the chief proponent of
8-VSB
> why would I have ever invested in Zenith?
It might explain your hatred of American HDTV/Zenith/8VSB. I think you lost
a ton of money somewhere...
Jeff Rife
> BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the
> only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS
If you count Fox Widescreen (yes, I know it's not HD, but the scripted shows
at 480p are far better than NTSC), I get 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS.
All but Fox do true HD, so even without Fox the count is 5.
--
Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But
301-916-8131 | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts
| throwing barrels at you."
| -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"
Polecat
> HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD
> offerings of both the locals
I am not holding my breath here, 2 - 5 years away if ever for HD locals on
cable and the little dish will over compress it and it will tile all the
time, you know they will.
I love my BIG ugly dish, 500 channels, analog, digital, HD, time shift (east
coast / west coast time zones, who needs TIVO) if it is out there I get it,
and it is the unadulterated feed when it hits my input.
Steve Bryan
...
> But apparently most people do. For decades most people could receive
> std tv OTA for free. Yet cable and sat together have 70 to 85% market
> share, depending on how you count, with OTA continuing a steady
> decline.
>
> HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD
> offerings of both the locals and premium channels and it will be
> there, indeed it will have to be there, for HD to become mainstream.
>
> BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the
> only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS
The reason cable got its opportunity to sell commercial laden TV for
$30/month and more is because NTSC reception is so demonstrably lousy.
That's why the title of this thread is so ironically wrong-headed. OTA
reception of ATSC can't be beaten by cable (assuming you get reception
which is apparently true for many people) since it is digital and if
anything cable systems are often guilty of over compressing their
signal. The best you can hope for is that they simply pass through the
transport stream unchanged except for modulation.
The five HD stations that I get already are CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS as
you mention and WB which has a few HD programs this year and I've read
that over 70% of their prime time will be HD this season. The other
three possibilities over the next year are KMSP, the Fox affiliate
which has some 480p widescreen this season and plans to have 720p next
season, KSTC which has reached some deal with HDNet to offer HD
content this season, and WFTC, the Fox-owned UPN affiliate about which
there are unsubstantiated rumors fueled by tests earlier this month.
I can also record any of those programs to view it again later
whenever I want to. Again, it is a digital signal that is identical
when viewed later (total HD budget of $200 for PCI tuner card and
antenna). Can any cable viewer in the country claim that ability? Oh,
I know there are promises but even when they arrive will the cable
company be in charge? Will you be able to save it as long as you want
on your hard drive or will it be automatically disabled (erased) after
a week or month?
Frankly I have trouble seeing why anyone would want to pay for cable
given the option of eight free HD stations. Last time I checked the
movie selection was pathetic, stuff I wouldn't bother to rent. You're
better off with a subscription to NetFlix and your choice of DVD's.
The only exception is original programming from HBO and comedy shows
you can't get OTA. I'd pay $10/month for it but it isn't offered that
way and they don't have to because they tend to be barely regulated
monopolies.
Bob Miller
>
>>When I say that OTA sucks by design this would include a number of
>>items.
>>
>>If broadcasters had truly been interested in designing a great
>>broadcast system to replace NTSC they would have done a number of
>>things.
>>
>
>
>
> I don't know enough about the technical issues to evaluate your claims.
> The difficulties people are having getting ATSC reception suggest the FCC
> could have done much better. The problem is, aren't we pretty much stuck
> with what we have now? Wouldn't it be prohibitively to change the
> modulation scheme now? Who besides you is pushing COFDM Seems to me
> it's a lost cause.
We are in the process of changing our modulation system right now from
NTSC to ATSC. Never heard anyone suggest it would be too expensive.
Maybe we should stay with NTSC forever because any change in modulation
will be too expensive.
What "prohibitively expensive" would be I don't know. I think someone
decided that staying with NTSC had its own expense associated with it.
For one thing OTA TV (NTSC) was/is dying. Fewer people use it every day.
We are down to less than 15% who depend on OTA TV or DTV. The expense of
continuing down this path to ZERO is that you are using the very
valuable TV spectrum inefficiently at best and when you get to ZERO you
are simple wasting it.
Also if you could deliver 5 channels instead of one or deliver an HDTV
signal instead of SDTV there is value there in either more quantity or
better quality. So the choice was made to go to digital and change the
modulation.
If after changing the modulation you discover that nothing has in fact
changed maybe you should consider other options. That is if the number
of people using OTA TV and DTV continue to decline toward ZERO what do
you do? Just let it happen? Ignore it?
Well the FCC is not ignoring it. First they try a mandate. Maybe the
mandate will be ruled out. The CEA is taking the FCC to court. Even if
the FCC wins it doesn't matter. Even if every TV set is made digital by
law you can't force people to use the OTA tuner. You can't force them to
put up an antenna.
So what do you do? If we follow you logic and say it is "prohibitively
expensive" I guess we can never do anything. Maybe we have to wait for
50 years like we did for NTSC before we change our modulation again.
Or maybe we wait a few more years for the disaster to sink in further or
for some politician to see that there is political hay to be harvested
in making the comment that "hey no one is using that TV spectrum so lets
sell it to someone who has some use for it".
In Germany they decided to start their digital transition last November
in Berlin and they turned off all analog this last month, August. This
is the greater Berlin area, a big hunk of Germany. You know how many
people called in to complain or ask for instructions or for any other
reason associated with the analog turnoff so far? Around 300.
This will happen soon here and someone is going to ask we are wasting
all this TV/DTV spectrum if no one is watching it.
One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to
believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation
is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly
successful.
The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and
sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will
use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a
better modulation.
Either way you get a new modulation.
The cost of changing now will always be far cheaper than waiting.
Especially if you consider all the hours of waste while the spectrum is
being used so inefficiently.
Bob Miller
>
>>One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to
>>believe that a better one would be more successful. Another
>>modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they
>>are wildly successful.
>>
>
>
No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere.
>
>
>>The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure
>>and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders
>>will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose
>>with a better modulation.
>>
>>Either way you get a new modulation.
>>
>
>
> Like I said, I just don't know enough about the technical issues to know
> whether COFDM would be better for HDTV, not just DTV. But I know the
> political reality is all the major stations in my area are already
> broadcasting (H)DTV, so I assume they've already invested a lot in
> equipment already. I don't think they'll look kindly on a modulation
> scheme change at this stage. Has (H)DTV been a failure in the US? I
> don't know. Do we have any comprehensive study, something besides
> anecdotal evidence?
In 2000 at the Congressional hearings HDTV was received at a higher data
rate, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB, at 19.34 Mbps and the COFDM antenna was a
bow tie from Radio Shack while the 8-VSB was a Silver Sensor. The COFDM
bow tie antenna was mobile the 8-vSB was fixed.
Studies were done by Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, S. Korean
broadcasters, Australia, Taiwan, Germany, Finland, France, the
Netherlands and the results were all the same, COFDM was far better.
The cost of switching from 8-VSB to COFDM is minimal. Basically you need
a COFDM modulator at around $50,000. Broadcasters if given the choice
would all switch in a moment. Remember that Sinclair, Pappas, Granite,
ABC and NBC openly supported a switch to COFDM. The only active
supporter of 8-VSB was CBS, a case of corporate senility. The rest were
cowed and intimidated into support of 8-VSB by Congressional threats.
Richard C.
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F680255...@earthlink.net...
:
: No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere.
=================
Really?
What world are you living in?
====================
:
bearman
OTA is not a flop in Albuquerque.
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F680255...@earthlink.net...
nospa...@nospampanix.com
>
>OTA is not a flop in Albuquerque.
>
>news:3F680255...@earthlink.net...
>>
>> No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere.
Nor in Los Angeles. But it is not yet a huge success either. As
with all new technologies, there is a chicken/egg situation where
there is less incentive for the broadcasters to put out HD (or DTV)
product while there are few viewers to see it, and they are waiting
for the broadcasters. But I think the situation is changing, perhaps
rapidly. Last weekend, I saw a display at the local Circuit City
with four different models of OTA HDTV receivers. They were all
in the $300 range, if my memory serves.
This reminds me of the situation where VCRs were only being purchased
by 'early adopters' and video 'buffs', and were quite expensive. As
the economics of scale (and the amortization of development costs)
brought down the prices of the product, more and more people dipped
into the pool, found it good, and showed it to friends... and a
successful market grew out of it.
Maybe the best thing we can do to help HDTV along is to invite
bunches of people over to watch Monday Night Football? :-)
My gut feeling is that the breakthrough price for OTA receivers
as a separate component would be about $200.
Bob Miller
<nospa...@nospampanix.com> wrote in message
news:bka2c0$eu9$1...@panix5.panix.com...
DTV receivers are selling at a 50,000 a week clip in the UK and they still
talk about how long it will take for the DTV transition and how the present
pace is not fast enough. They still talk of mandating receivers in the UK to
get the job done. Since the UK is one sixth the size of the US we would have
to be selling OTA DTV receivers at a 300,000 a week clip to just match the
rate in the UK.
Not only are we not selling receivers at anything resembling a clip in the
US but also people who buy HDTV monitors are not even buying OTA receivers.
Maybe one out of ten and in many cases these are dual satellite receivers
that will never be used for OTA.
To have a successful OTA DTV transition in the US we will have to have
inexpensive converter DTV receivers for the 300 million analog sets that are
out there and for the 25 million analog sets that are being sold each year.
Where are they?
OTA DTV is such a disaster in the US that the FCC felt they had to mandate
receivers in every TV set. And now we have the CEA (Consumer Electronic
Association) fighting that in court. The very organization that pushed for
the DTV transition is fighting to stop the mandate, the one thing that could
at least do a good job of pretending that people will have access to OTA.
Ask yourselves why the CEA is against this. It is an easy one. They do not
want to deal with the problems that come with people having reception OTA
problems and returning the sets. They are arguing in court right now that
90% of viewers do not need OTA because they have satellite or cable. They
are arguing correctly IMO that people that will not use the OTA receiver
should not be forced to buy it to subsidize the 10% who want one.
The DTV OTA transition is an utter disaster by any measure in the US and the
mandate will not help.
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
I imagine there can be all sorts of reception problems when you live
under a bridge.
John.
--
*** John P. Kolesar ***
*** sp...@shagg.net --- http://www.shagg.net/ ***
*** Valley Mead Brewery ***
***********************
Bob Miller
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <sp...@shagg.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbmhef...@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:29:30 -0700, <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F680255...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >:
> >: No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere.
> >
> >=================
> > Really?
> > What world are you living in?
> >====================
>
> I imagine there can be all sorts of reception problems when you live
> under a bridge.
>
>
> John.
I suggest that reception problems, cost of receivers, lack of receivers that
would both be inexpensive enough and ACTUALLY available for converting DTV
signals to analog TV sets are some of the main problems that there is a
disaster in the US DTV transition.
If we had converted or did convert now to DVB-T COFDM those problems would
be solved. SDTV converters are available at as low as $50 NOW with COFDM.
Reception is simply not a problem whether you are moving or stationary. No
need for rotors and directional antennas to avoid multipath. Multipath is
your friend with COFDM DVB-T.
Living under a bridge would not be a problem with COFDM either.
So what would you suggest the reason is for the DTV OTA disaster if not the
above?
You can't say lack of programming because people are buying HDTV receivers
to watch DVDs and cable and satellite while ignoring OTA receivers which
would allow them to receive HD programs OTA where most of the HDTV content
is.
So why are people specifically not buying OTA receivers? They are buying
them in droves in Europe and they don't even have the biggest draw for DTV
OTA, HDTV.
In Berlin 95% of people have cable or satellite and the OTA DTV does not
offer HDTV and yet they are buying all the receivers they can get. Why?
Something does not make sense here. We have the killer ap, HDTV. People ARE
buying HDTV sets but they are NOT BUYING THE OTA RECEIVERS!!!
In Europe they do not have the killer ap, HDTV. People are buying OTA DTV
receivers. They don't have to, they have more cable customers than we do.
Why? The receivers are inexpensive, they work plug and play with no fancy
antenna cost or legwork and they are available, lots of choice.
BTW BMW and Mercedes have announced that they will be including DTV
receivers in their vehicles.
So make another joke or try to answer the questions.
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
>
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <sp...@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbmhef...@weizen.shagg.net...
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:29:30 -0700, <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3F680255...@earthlink.net...
>> >
>> >:
>> >: No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere.
>> >
>> >=================
>> > Really?
>> > What world are you living in?
>> >====================
>>
>> I imagine there can be all sorts of reception problems when you live
>> under a bridge.
>
That was not a joke. I was very serious about you being a troll.
Richard C.
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:593ab.28850$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
:
: I suggest that reception problems, cost of receivers, lack of receivers that
: would both be inexpensive enough and ACTUALLY available for converting DTV
: signals to analog TV sets are some of the main problems that there is a
: disaster in the US DTV transition.
====================
What disaster?
Care to provide some real basis for that insane claim?
====================
:
: So what would you suggest the reason is for the DTV OTA disaster if not the
: above?
=========================
Once again, there is no disaster.
==========================
:
: You can't say lack of programming because people are buying HDTV receivers
: to watch DVDs and cable and satellite while ignoring OTA receivers which
: would allow them to receive HD programs OTA where most of the HDTV content
: is.
========================
Virtually ALL HD receivers handle OTA.
You are obviously ignorant of the facts concerning a subject you love to spout forth
upon.
=========================
:
Bob Miller
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:593ab.28850$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
That last sentence should read that people are buying HDTV monitors not
"HDTV receivers". That is people are buying the HDTV monitors but ignoring
the OTA receivers.
Steve Bryan
...
> mandate will not help.
I suppose I could be faulted for feeding the trolls but I think that
leaving his bizarre comments unanswered would be a worse mistake. Bob
make statements that, while they could be characterized as opinion,
are just so remote from reality that they are utterly misleading. This
newsgroup is a little backwater for discussion of the topic of HDTV
but it is indexed by Google and many may casually look for information
here. Anyone truly interested in the topic needs to visit
www.avsforum.com to see a lively, wide ranging discussion.
Anyone who visits a place like AVS Forum will realize that HDTV is a
reality in the US (ahead of anywhere else, at this point, since the
Japanese had an expensive false start with analog technology). In any
regulatory transition like this one from NTSC to ATSC standards, which
is slated to run from 1998 to 2006, there will be many incidents and
conflicts. It is expensive and many parties will gain while others
will lose. But I think it can safely be said that it is all over
except for the shouting. In Minneapolis - St Paul all of the NTSC
stations are on the air also with their corresponding ATSC stations.
I'd be curious to hear how many other locations are also "done". The
technicians here and elsewhere have issues of proper synchronization
between audio and video some times. An HD program is occasionally sent
in SD because someone fails to flip a switch.
But it is done. You can go to stores, buy the equipment, install it
and it works. Check in on some of those forums and see how impressed
many are with the results. As is ALWAYS the case with technology we
have a self selected minority of early adopters who voluntarily pay
higher prices, put up with technical glitches so they can have today
what others patiently wait to have much later. We are still in the
early adopter stage which always starts slowly -- recall personal
computers in the 70's, prerecorded video in the 80's, internet
commercialization in the 90's, DVD's in the late 90's and now HDTV.
They seem like they will forever remain hobbyist niches and then the
price and technology reach a certain unpredictable point and it
becomes ubiquitous. Don't forget that Bill Gates published a book in
1995 and didn't mention the internet (later editions were edited). I
suppose by Bob Miller's reasoning the internet was doomed.
Bob's continual complaints of the failure of OTA TV should be viewed
in context. If he were to claim that the history of NTSC OTA from the
fifties to the present is a disaster I would be inclined to agree.
Initially everyone received TV by antenna and it held 100% of the
market. Until the advent of satellite TV there were many places where
OTA reception was not feasible. That made cable TV a reality going
back at least into the sixties. What was surprising was how popular
cable became in cities where it should have been possible to get the
same signals for free. But OTA reception of NTSC was often
disappointing. Since cable TV operators were able to charge directly
for their service, premium channels like HBO were created and the rest
is history. Currently cable penetration is somewhere around 70%.
The reason I bother with all this exposition is that OTA TV is
CURRENTLY a disaster. What is interesting is that ATSC has the
potential to change that dramatically. Watching ATSC stations is like
watching DVD video but in the case of HD programs it is dramatically
better. If there is a problem with a station's signal you may lose it
but normally it has none of the manifold defects of NTSC reception.
Despite Bob's continual drumbeat of gloom and doom all I have to do is
turn it on and watch (like Monday night's football game) to see that
in my case his thesis has no basis. It's here, it works, it's cool
(and free).
Bob Miller
In your case it works. You have no dropouts at all. That is wonderful. And
if no one had any problems with ATSC you would be right. But they do. In a
high percentage of cases ATSC does not work as well as NTSC does. This was
documented by the MSTV test of 2000. And when ATSC fails it is catastrophic,
you get a blank screen. With the failed NTSC broadcast you at least could
many times still follow the game even when you had a plane fly over that
caused interference. With ATSC you lose it completely. ATSC is far inferior
to NTSC because of this IMO. And it is why ATSC is continuing and will
continue to follow the ongoing NTSC failure. People are used to the
reliability of cable and satellite. If you want them to go back to OTA you
have to offer something at least as good as cable or satellite reception.
Satellite is not even that good. They have dropouts in thunderstorms in New
York City and that is why my wife said we had to get rid of Dish. And the
dropouts on ATSC are a thousand times worse than Dish.
I have a Yagi antenna aimed at the Empire State Building which is on 34th
St. I am in the East River at what would be 66th St. I have full view of the
ESB and its 1200 foot antennas and am all of 32 blocks away. The are
transmitting at high power levels probably a MegaWatt or higher. I get Fox,
CBS and a Spanish channel. You can't watch them however. The dropouts come
with incredible regularity. There is all kinds of dynamic multipath in this
city as in many others and in many other non city areas.
At the same time COFDM is being broadcast from below Canal St. from an
antenna at 400 ft. altitude. I have no line of sight to that antenna. My
receive antenna is a 4 inch vertical omni antenna that cost $4.00 and the
power level of the broadcast is a 100 Watt transmitter. I have no problem
receiving the COFDM broadcast. In fact I can take my $65 receiver and my $4
antenna and put it on the dashboard of my car and can receive that COFDM
signal all over Manhattan while moving. In fact can receive while going 75
mph on the FDR Drive.
Why are we wrestling with this disaster of a modulation when a far better
one exist? Actually three far better ones exist. Why are we going through
this farce? You talk of less expensive receivers ATSC coming. With COFDM
they are here. How many do you want?
It is amazing how people who are lucky enough to get decent reception
suggest that this is true of most people. It is not. I find your comments
bizarre, that a sample of one, yourself, proves ATSC is OK. And your reading
of the AVSFORUM is amazing also. All over the AVSFORUM people talk of
incredible reception problems and the lengths they have to go to for a
signal. The AVSFORUM had turned off more people on HDTV than anything else.
I have read numerous post there where people say just that, they will wait
for things to work.
Matthew L. Martin
>
> In your case it works. You have no dropouts at all. That is wonderful. And
> if no one had any problems with ATSC you would be right. But they do. In a
Please cite some facts to back up this statement. The combined history
of the poster's to this newsgroup put lie to that statement. Virtually
everyone who has tried to receive ATSC and reported here has had
excellent results.
The few who have not had success also report having very poor NTSC
reception. Other reports of poor reception come from cases of
co-location of high power NTSC and low power ATSC broadcasts or other
reasons that have more to do with transition than modulation.
Even your poster boy for ATSC failure, Mark Shubin, reports that he has
received Philadelphia ATSC in his Manhattan apartment.
Jeff Rife
> Virtually
> everyone who has tried to receive ATSC and reported here has had
> excellent results.
>
> The few who have not had success also report having very poor NTSC
> reception. Other reports of poor reception come from cases of
> co-location of high power NTSC and low power ATSC broadcasts or other
> reasons that have more to do with transition than modulation.
Two interesting stories:
The local PAX and WB are unwatchable for me on analog. Partly this is
because their antennas are not clustered with the rest, and so I am not
pointed at them. Even if I point at them, though, I wouldn't watch signals
that bad no matter how important the show. Their ATSC channels, though,
are just fine. The WB station is digital 51 at 125kW and analog 50 at
2450 kW, with both broadcasting from the same tower. Both co-location
*and* adjacent channels, and digital is better than analog. PAX doesn't
have adjacent channels, but the transmitters are co-located, with channel
66 analog at 3400kW and channel 43 digital at 90kW.
Second, a guy down the street from me was having problems with one digital
station, and I was just fine. We're in the path of hurricane Isabel, so
we both took down our outside antennas, and he hooked up a Zenith Silver
Sensor indoor antenna temporarily. When he did, the problem channel was
fine. After looking at the outdoor antenna, it turns out something was
wrong with it that apparently caused problems with just that one channel.
--
Jeff Rife |
301-916-8131 | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/SportOfKings.gif
Bozo the Clown
> as a separate component would be about $200.
I think this is probably correct. The cost is more of problem than
the modulation any day of the week. These STBs cost a lot due to
expensive MPEG2 decoding hardware, not the modulation scheme.
Australian COFDM HDTV STBs cost as much as US ones.
Bob Miller
"Bozo the Clown" <anotherbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d7632c4.03091...@posting.google.com...
Australian COFDM DVB-T receivers cost a lot because the market is miniscule,
total of less than 4 million homes, and because they have a 7 MHz channel
size where most of the world has 6 MHz or 8 MHz.
Very few manufacturers have therefore built receivers for OZ.
If we were COFDM in the US for HDTV receivers would cost under $200 NOW. And
I am sure there would be one at $75. Pace promised Congress in June of 2000
$200 HDTV COFDM receivers by Christmas of 2000 if COFDM were allowed in the
US.
Modulation has lots to do with it. And that is before you count the cost of
antennas and rotors as compared to antennas for COFDM that work on cell
phones.
BB
> The few who have not had success also report having very poor NTSC
> reception. Other reports of poor reception come from cases of
> co-location of high power NTSC and low power ATSC broadcasts or other
> reasons that have more to do with transition than modulation.
Not to mention the 489 threads where someone is trying to get signals that
are almost always UHF with VHF rabbit ears.
--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
Richard C.
:
: "Bozo the Clown" <anotherbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
=============
Why don't you just move to one of the countries that uses your beloved COFDM?
=============
David
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message news:htcab.34522>
> I have a Yagi antenna aimed at the Empire State Building...
Sure you do.
COFDM is a joke in England, did you know that?
HERE are some more snippets from British postings on well-known COFDM
interference problems, in the last 4 months.
All of these can cause loss of picture/reception:
--------------------------------------------------
"Refrigerators, passing motorcycles,
mopeds, loose AC plugs, heating thermostats,
halogen lamps, kitchen appliances, passing vehicles,
battery-powered remote-control toys."
Atmospherics, washing machines, sewing machines,
personal computers, dodgy street lamps,
fish tank heaters, high frequency lighting ballast,
sunlamps"
whew.
Marginal-reception-area,
"try tilting the aerial upwards away from passing vehicles".
Some more:
"white sparkles on screen, picture freezes,
wavey effect on the picture, signal cuts out,
ferrite beads may help",
"attenuation along path to receiver,
free space loss/rain/snow/obstructions
(ie hills/buildings/trees), receive antenna gain,
loss of downlead co-ax, gain/sensitivity of receiver front end,
how receiver translates this signal level."
----------------------------------------------------
COFDM sucks this bad, and they DON'T EVEN HAVE HDTV.
All the above from the Digitalspy forum [UK].
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/index.php
Thanks again for directing me to that site, Bob.
Bob Miller
"darius" <no...@here.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > Studies were done by Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, S. Korean
> > broadcasters, Australia, Taiwan, Germany, Finland, France, the
> > Netherlands and the results were all the same, COFDM was far better.
> >
> > The cost of switching from 8-VSB to COFDM is minimal. Basically you
> > need a COFDM modulator at around $50,000. Broadcasters if given the
> > choice would all switch in a moment. Remember that Sinclair, Pappas,
> > Granite, ABC and NBC openly supported a switch to COFDM. The only
> > active supporter of 8-VSB was CBS, a case of corporate senility. The
> > rest were cowed and intimidated into support of 8-VSB by
> > Congressional threats.
> >
>
> is backed by ABC et al, how did we get to this point? Who were pushing
> the FCC to push 8-VSB? Qui bono?
There were not that many. Wiley (former FCC chairman, now hired gun), CBS's
Joe Flarety, the CEA guy Shapiro and a Mat Miller from a company called
Nextwave taken over by a Canadian company. The main money was coming from S.
Korea's LG Industries who own Zenith and Zenith owns the Intellectual
Property rights, the royalty rights. They claimed to their stockholders that
royalties would bring in $100 million each year from the USA. It should
since they are
charging ten time what DVB-T COFDM charges for royalties.
The real problem was a lack of support from those who knew better and from
the broadcasters who seem to only be interested in Must Carry on cable.
8-VSB cost them less in broadcasting cost while it cost the consumer more in
receiver and antenna cost but broadcasters are not thinking about the OTA
consumer. They forgot him a long time ago. They are basically content
providers to cable companies.
It was insane to watch a few companies, a few high powered lobbyist and
organizations with little engineering expertise residing in those who were
in control dictate by intimidation and outright lies the DTV modulation of
the US.
Who was pushing the FCC? No one. The push was coming from Congress in
threats to a quivering broadcast group. The FCC just went with the tide. Did
what they were told to do IMO. The power is in controlling Congress and we
know how that is done.
What shocked me was how scared broadcasters were and how neutral those in
the engineering companies who know better were because, hey, they can sell
8-VSB transmitters just as well as COFDM ones. No need to ruffle any
feathers on either side. There were few on the COFDM side. The DVB COFDM
group in Europe has many members who were on the 8-VSB camp so they said and
did nothing to support COFDM.
Sinclair was the only active broadcaster who stood up to Congress, the CEA,
the NAB and said it like it was. Nokia sent a letter to Congress supporting
COFDM and Pace actually was a witness before Congress for COFDM. That was
it.
Bob Miller
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3f6a67a7$0$169$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
a little band clearing first. It is underway.
Bob Miller
"David" <dav...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4CednRqtAda...@comcast.com...
the same number per month as have been sold in the US in the 7 1/2 year
history of DTV.
You also read that the power levels are 1/1000 of what a typical US 8-VSB
station is powered at.
You also read that the coverage area is only about 65% of the country at
these miniscule power levels and a lot of the reception problems you read
have to do with people trying to receive very low powered transmitters at
great distances and way out of any hoped for coverage area.
You also read their laments that they in some cases were using older
receivers that were not designed for impulse noise like the newer receivers
that do not have that problem.
You probably plowed on and read laments about the fact that in their
eagerness the UK adopted an early version of COFDM, 2K, that is not as
robust as the 8K version that is deployed in most other countries.
And you know that Europe will have HDTV via satellite in a few months but
you did not include that or any of the above in your post.
Steve Bryan
> ... In a
> high percentage of cases ATSC does not work as well as NTSC does. This was
> documented by the MSTV test of 2000. ...
This may be part of the difference of opinion. If things were much
worse three years ago I wouldn't know much about it. I read some of
the HDTV newa but was unwilling to buy until a software based tuner
card was introduced, which was not many months ago. Also there is no
question that in many cases broadcasters were dragging their feet over
spending all the necessary money. But what you have not responded to
is that the transition has occurred. The consumers aren't there yet
but the stations are. Indeed how can one expect individuals (except
early adopters) to spend the money until the stations are on the air.
Over a thousand stations (currently 1011) are broadcasting DTV in over
200 markets. (There are only about 1,700 total see www.nab.org). It
really isn't a question of prediction any more. It's done. As others
have pointed out OTA is the only way people will be getting the
multitude of HD programs. Cable and satellite are both loathe to
provide the needed bandwidth for the local affiliates of all the
networks (there are 5 that already offer HDTV and Fox has committed to
it for next season).
That leaves the question of the consumers. What will they do or not do
which will constitute the disaster you so often predict? First, for
the 70% that are served by cable the transition is essentially
assured. You can turn off all those NTSC channels and the cable viewer
will not notice. There will be pushing and shoving over the insistence
of cable companies that they have the right to eviscerate the signal
from local network affiliates to keep their costs down. But the FCC
will get some form of these local stations on all cable systems.
So there is that 30% that steadfastly refuses to engage in commerce
with a cable TV company. Will at least half of them manage to
successfully overcome that 8-VSB "obstacle" some time in the next
three years? Wouldn't that provide the needed 85% to allow the turn
off of NTSC and the resulting cold shower for the stragglers? If the
needed STB is not less than $100 it would defy all previous history of
digital electronics. I don't think it will go that way at all. I think
that by the time the Super Bowl rolls around on CBS this season there
will be millions who will see OTA HDTV for the first time at a
friend's house. If the viewing results are anything like the first few
HDTV games this year on CBS, ESPN, and ABC we will see HDTV moving out
from early adopters to the general public (or at least sports fans).
At that point I think a combination of OTA and satellite will explode
in the market.
David
> And you did also read that they are selling 50,000 receivers a week or
about
> the same number per month as have been sold in the US in the 7 1/2 year
> history of DTV.
Meaning what? It's not even HDTV. Interference-plagued British STANDARD
DIGITAL OTA COFDM has been a nightmare and would have totally ruined the USA
HDTV rollout.
> You also read that the power levels are 1/1000 of what a typical US 8-VSB
> station is powered at.
Have you ever heard of repeaters? British COFDM requires hundreds of them.
Even using hundreds of repeaters, British cofdm is INTERFERENCE PLAGUED.
This is exactly what you've been promoting here! What a ridiculous joke.
> You also read that the coverage area is only about 65% of the country at
> these miniscule power levels and a lot of the reception problems you read
> have to do with people trying to receive very low powered transmitters at
> great distances and way out of any hoped for coverage area.
Interference AND overload problems have been a NIGHTMARE almost everywhere
in England and not just in the outskirts.
> You also read their laments that they in some cases were using older
> receivers that were not designed for impulse noise like the newer
receivers
> that do not have that problem.
The postings I saw are 4 months old, many of them from August 2003.
(That's just one (1) month ago, Bob.)
You still praise the old 2k cofdm system, too.
It's obviously NOT superior to 8VSB. Can you say "COFDM is a Mickey Mouse
OTA transmission method"?
Our American 8VSB is a beautiful, elegant and robust transmission method.
> You probably plowed on and read laments about the fact that in their
> eagerness the UK adopted an early version of COFDM, 2K, that is not as
> robust as the 8K version that is deployed in most other countries.
The 2K English system is the one you worshiped on AVS forum in 1999, and
it's been TERRIBLE. The 8k system is much better, but STILL INTERFERENCE
PLAGUED.
Thank God we use reliable, robust 8VSB here.
> And you know that Europe will have HDTV via satellite in a few months but
> you did not include that or any of the above in your post.
Ummm, meaning what? lol..
I was on AVS forum in 1999 and you were thrown out, not because of
censorship, but because of COMPLAINTS BY OTHER MEMBERS. Mostly about lying,
IIRC.
Anyway, like I said, our American 8VSB HDTV OTA is very elegant and robust
transmission method.
Bozo the Clown
Then let's compare apples to apples. The difference in price of
computer ATSC cards that do hardware vs software MPEG2 decoding is
about $100 ($300 for those with onboard decoders, $200 for those
without).
This hardware is non trivial, and does add substantially to the cost.
Richard C.
: > :
: > =============
: > Why don't you just move to one of the countries that uses your beloved
: COFDM?
: > =============
: >
: Don't have to move the US allows COFDM on channels 51 to 69. Just have to do
: a little band clearing first. It is underway.
=============================
But who cares and who will watch it and how much HDTV will it carry?
David
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/special_packages/6778743.htm
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:j5vab.41165$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Steve Bryan
> Sinclair was the only active broadcaster who stood up to Congress, the CEA,
You see statements like this don't do your position much good. Whether
deserved or not, Sinclair has managed to get a rather unfavorable
reputation for their performance. There is a long thread on one of the
AVS Forums complaining that in markets where Sinclair owns one or more
stations they are always lagging the other stations badly in getting
HDTV on the air. I certainly don't know independently if this charge
is accurate but there are many people from different locations who
indicate that this claim is valid. In my location they own the WB
affiliate which some complain is difficult to receive. I do receive it
and in the past month they have started to successfully broadcast some
HD content. They had some audio problems initially but that has been
corrected. So while they are lagging here I wouldn't bother to
complain about it (after all, it is the WB affiliate).
More disturbing though are the anonymous charges that upper management
is the culprit where there are issues. The charges are anonymous
because the people involved would undoubtedly lose their jobs. In any
case it leaves the impression that they have less interest than their
peers in contributing to the common good (which one might expect in
response to the free use of valuable spectrum). One might even infer
their position on COFDM was a ploy to avoid the investment they were
being required to make by the FCC.
Matthew L. Martin
> COFDM recievers in Europe will be MORE expensive than our 8VSB models:
>
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/special_packages/6778743.htm
>
Quelle surprise!
Isn't it amazing that, when apples are compared to apples, we find that
the price of apples is the same.
BTW, the same link says:
"The channel still has some hurdles to clear. Sistla, the analyst,
estimates that cable TV companies need to spend about $1,000 per
subscriber to upgrade their equipment for HDTV -- costs the European
cable industry cannot afford".
So much for cable making OTA obsolete.
hasan schiers
site, with a medium sized Radio Shaft antenna at about 30'. Absolutely
perfect pix on every channel that is on. RCA DTC-100 receiver, no preamp,
50' RG-6u feedline. Signal levels (100 max):
CBS: 94
FOX: 93
NBC: 94
PBS: 84
ABC: not available yet, local station WOI is about as progressive as
neanderthals.
CBS's HD stuff looks downright spectacular! In fact this OTA channel
produces day in and day out, the best HDTV pix that I see, and I have
DirecTV HD package.
The DirecTV stuff at its best is excellent, but still a notch below OTA.
So much for "OTA sucks by design". Methinks this is just attention seeking
behavior, and I only post a response in order to help prevent baseless
propaganda against OTA HD/Digital from gaining a foothold among those easily
taken in by a person with an obvious agenda. (and way too much time on their
hands)
...hasan, N0AN
"Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in message
news:c0fe5579a6fa4ee3...@news.teranews.com...
Leonard Caillouet
"hasan schiers" <sch...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:bkfs5d$nn7$1...@ins22.netins.net...
OTA DTV seems to work pretty well here, too, though we don't have much yet.
In Gainesville we can get Fox out of Ocala (40 or so miles) cleanly with
cheap rabbit ears, while their analog broadcast is snowy unless you have a
mast and a nice antenna. Hopefully we will get some HD broadcasts soon,
other than what we get by sat.
Leonard Caillouet
Bob Miller
I always have said that HD will do well on cable and satellite. I am only
talking about OTA broadcasting and the disaster it IS! Not predicting a
disaster at all. I am talking of the disaster OTA TV/DTV is because of the
modulation 8-VSB. HDTV is a resolution. There will be lots of it on wireless
networks, cable, Satellite, VDSL ect. Especially if a lot of people keep
buying 1080i HDTV sets to watch 480i DVDs.
OTA free TV/DTV is at risk because no one is or will buy the OTA receivers.
They will wait for cable satellite and watch DVDs in the meantime.
We are 7 1/2 years into the DTV transition and ignorance, lies and outright
fraud have delayed it and will continue to delay it. OTA may just die.
Especially when you hear the FCC Chairman Powell say exactly that. He was
not mincing words. Before that he was heard to say that since few were
watching OTA TV/DTV and the number of viewers was declining "What are we
protecting?'
Bob Miller
"David" <dav...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Cy-dnRAijd0...@comcast.com...
Bob Miller
ones who first raised the alarm about the problems with 8-VSB. This alarm
caused other countries who had already officially chosen 8-VSB as their
countries standard to rethink and test COFDM and 8-VSB. Australia and Taiwan
then changed there countries modulation to COFDM. S. Korea refused to listen
to their broadcasters and test. The broadcasters tested on their own and
pleaded for COFDM.
Brazil which was already being counted, along with Taiwan and Australia, by
the CEA and ATSC as being in the 8-VSB camp decided to test and came out for
either ISDB-T or DVB-T, both COFDM and they rejected 8-VSB. Argentina where
in the absence of the President (trip to Europe) a broadcast coupe chose
8-VSB, the decision was reversed to the current situation of no decision.
AVSFORUM deletes any post that would defend Sinclair except post by Mark
Aitken of Sinclair. They then do a job on him as they have for years.
Compared to Sinclair most of the rest of today's broadcasters are wimps.
In the end COFDM in one of its variants will be used in the US, its benefits
recognized and 8-VSB will be retired. Sinclair will be vindicated and
everyone will wonder how this all could have happened.
Broadcasters
"Steve Bryan" <steve...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:10be2ecc.03091...@posting.google.com...
Bob Miller
"Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in message
news:a14d9fca44660e86...@news.teranews.com...
BB
> We are 7 1/2 years into the DTV transition and ignorance, lies and outright
> fraud have delayed it and will continue to delay it
You must be talking about what you've been posting here. You keep saying
its being delayed because the modulation doesn't work, but there isn't
anyone here saying "yes I've tried it and it doesn't work." Everyone who's
tried it seems to be saying "well I've tried it and it works" (unless
they're in the middle of nowhere and don't get NTSC either). And it does
work. I'm watching it right now. It looks amazing.
Steve Bryan
> AVSFORUM deletes any post that would defend Sinclair except post by Mark
> Aitken of Sinclair. They then do a job on him as they have for years.
> Compared to Sinclair most of the rest of today's broadcasters are wimps.
Well, that is your way to characterize it. Others point out that those
"wimps" are actually getting the job done while Sinclair brings up the
rear of the pack. My personal observation based on KMWB is not biased
much one way or the other. That Sinclair station seems to be doing its
job. But nationally Sinclair has generated quite a few vocal
detractors. Anyone who is interested can easily find the critical
remarks in the AVS Forum archives. However, as is signaled by the
public relations repair job by Mark Aitken, I think Sinclair has
accepted reality and have abandoned their delaying tactics. Unlike Mr
Miller, they have probably seen that the OTA HDTV future is arriving
with or without them, so they've cut their COFDM losses and plunged
ahead into the 8-VSB future. Their web site has even changed recently
to include a significant area devoted to OTA HDTV.
As I said in my other message, there are over 1,000 stations on the
air with an 8-VSB transmitter. That is a lot of installed technology
and corresponding experience and proficiency. Heck, even if it is a
dog (and I'm sure there are many who would object to that claim) with
all that capital and talent applied I would bet that its success is
assured. I remember way back in the early decades of NTSC when those
initials might as well have meant Never The Same Color. It was
probably almost 20 years before the engineers got a good handle on how
to do transmission and reception to get a good color image. I know it
was lousy for most of the sixties.
But if you give engineers a fixed target, they will usually solve the
problems. They may never manage 8-VSB reception in a car traveling at
75 mph, but frankly, I don't care. It's bad enough that people won't
put down their damn cell phones and pay attention to driving because
it is too boring for them. At this point good solutions for home
reception already exist. I know because I have one and have heard from
many others. The longer one is willing to wait the better the
solutions will be and the cost will only decrease. But if you wait you
don't get to watch next MNF in HD or Mission Impossible 2 on Sunday
night. Did I mention it's free?
Matthew L. Martin
> Again this is satellite not terrestrial and not COFDM.
>
The point you are evading is that HD is much more expensive than SD. It
is in Australia, it is in Europe and it is in the US.
Bob Miller
The problem is that NTSC was never fixed. It still doesn't work so people
are still migrating to cable and satellite from OTA. The numbers are
dropping even when you include ATSC new users.
Even on AVSFORUM many early adopters admit that as soon as they can get a
decent amount of HDTV on cable or satellite they do not need OTA.
The current modulation, 8-VSB, is a joke, a stopgap, the cheapest solution
for broadcasters with no thought to end users since they do not themselves
believe that long term there is any need or business plan for OTA.
Broadcasters, the FCC, the CEA, many early adopters, most manufacturers,
most retailers and the public by their actions or words say that OTA is
dead.
Broadcasters delay any capital outlay for OTA DTV broadcast because they
have no business plan nor do they believe that the public will install the
necessary antennas or buy the receivers needed for OTA reception. All you
have to do is listen to the testimony of the NAB or MSTV before Congress.
The FCC's Chairman Powell has now stated publicly that he thinks OTA is
dieing and "What are we protecting?"
The CEA witnesses before Congress that people will not bother to put up
antennas for OTA and now in court agues that mandated receivers are wrong
again because most people will not use OTA because of the reception problems
the require antennas and because they already are happy with cable or
satellite.
Many early adopters admit they will switch to cable or satellite as soon as
possible since OTA can deliver less than services such as VOOM.
Most manufacturers are avoiding OTA. Few are making OTA receivers, No one is
making an inexpensive conversion receiver that would work with current
analog TV sets. This is probably crucial if you want to save OTA
broadcasting IMO. Yes full blown 8-VSB receivers will work with analog sets
but they are not reasonably priced for use with 13" sets. No low priced
receivers that work with analog sets like in Europe that sell for as little
as $50 and even less if you want to look for an open box special or on EBAY
like those who want to talk about low cost 8-VSB receivers in the US. Then
you can find them for a few Euro's.
Most retailers do not sell OTA receivers with any enthusiasm. Few advertise.
Few stock. Fewer know anything about OTA or even that it is possible. Few
can get good reception. Few try. Few want to risk a sale do to drop outs or
loss of signal due to multipath. Few want to deal with the returns that
occur because of reception problems. Or maybe someone has another reason
that would explain why retailers are not on board with the wonders of OTA
DTV.
The public is not buying OTA. 9 out of 10 HDTV monitor sales do not include
an OTA receiver. As was said retailers do not want to screw up the sale with
OTA problems but word of mouth also plays a part. No one wants to buy into
an unknown. On AVSFORUM it happens all the time. People asking if they can
somehow find out if they get good reception before making a purchase. Most
take the easy way out and do not buy the receiver at all. They will just
wait till cable and satellite have HDTV and watch 480i DVD's in the
meantime.
It is just a matter of political time (If you have a political clock) before
the number of OTA users fall to a critical (political) number and either we
change modulations or the spectrum will be sold to those who will (use a
different modulation).
There really is no political constituency for OTA free TV anymore, not a big
one anyway and declining. In Berlin they did their whole digital transition
between last November 1st and this last August 1st. THERE IS NO ANALOG TV IN
BERLIN NOW! We have been at it for 7 1/2 years and have sold like 200,000
OTA receivers about the same number they have sold in just one German city,
BERLIN , since November.
How many complained or in any way contacted officials about the analog
turn-off in Berlin? That is, how big was a concerned political constituency?
They got around 300 calls mostly for instructions, few complaints.
The FCC is listening to this. Congress will act. Powell will continue to
make public statements to test reactions to OTA turn-off. They just have to
find a legal way to maintain the must carry fiction for broadcasters while
they cease to actually be broadcasters.
Bob Miller
There is no HD terrestrial in Europe.
It will be less expensive in Japan using a better compression technology
also. That is HD receivers will be less expensive in Japan next year than HD
receivers are in the US on average. In Japan they will be delivering regular
HD to your HD monitor, SD to your analog TV set and SD to your PDA and cell
phone. Japan uses ISDB-T modulation that depends on COFDM (M for
multiplexing).
If COFDM HD receivers were used in the US they would be far less expensive
than HD 8-VSB receivers. And COFDM receivers made just for SD to work with
current analog TV sets would be $50 or even less and would be extremely
plentiful with upwards of 60 manufacturers marketing them.
It would be
"Matthew L. Martin" <mlma...@me.com> wrote in message
news:b65b1659e3e40cae...@news.teranews.com...
Matthew L. Martin
> It is not more expensive in Europe because it does not exist in Europe.
> There is no HD terrestrial in Europe.
Look, bob, you're busted. The projected price for HD is the price of HD.
The type of modulation is a tiny fraction of the cost and you well know it.
John Dyson
> Bob Miller wrote:
> > It is not more expensive in Europe because it does not exist in Europe.
> > There is no HD terrestrial in Europe.
>
> Look, bob, you're busted. The projected price for HD is the price of HD.
> The type of modulation is a tiny fraction of the cost and you well know
it.
>
to cover a given area. Also, there seems to be EVEN MORE problems with
analog and COFDM compatibility than with 8VSB... Frankly, there are
advantages and disadvantages to COFDM and 8VSB, but for the US
architecture and applications, 8VSB is probably significantly better.
When people 'suppose' Bob's motives of coverage at 75MPH down the
road, it is OBVIOUSLY not just for the motorist, but also for the mass
transit application with saturation advertising... Bob's ideal would
be VERY VERY close to the Max Headroom world, with blipverts helping
to line his pockets. Even my 1st (commercial) generation 8VSB receiver
does much much better than NTSC coverage, with a much better picture.
It is pretty clear that when there are 'complaints' against 8VSB, there are
few cases where COFDM would actually be better, when the entire
electromagnetic environment is taken into consideration. Where COFDM
would be advantageous, then cable is usually a better choice than OTA
anyway. Where 8VSB shows serious advantages, cable is a little less
needed. The combination of 8VSB and cable seems to be a very good
general purpose solution, while COFDM and cable seem to be less
advantageous. For a primarily
mobile environment, where consideration is made for properly handling
impulse noise, etc, then COFDM would be okay (and in fact, a good solution.)
For the home HDTV/DTV application, few of the Bob-complaints really
are very accurate in general.
I still cannot see any Bob-motivation other than a special finanical
interest.
John
Steve Bryan
> The problem is that NTSC was never fixed. It still doesn't work so people
> are still migrating to cable and satellite from OTA. The numbers are
> dropping even when you include ATSC new users.
>
> Even on AVSFORUM many early adopters admit that as soon as they can get a
> decent amount of HDTV on cable or satellite they do not need OTA.
According to one source the percentage for cable has been declining
for each of the last three years. It was a small effect so leveling
off might be a better description. But I think we both agree that
reception problems with NTSC have led to the rise of cable TV.
However, as many have said even in those homes with cable TV service
it is common for several sets to be using antenna rather than cable.
Those people may not be writing letters or putting pressure on
politicians but if OTA were to be cut off by the Powell FCC the
response would not be mild.
Even as we discuss this Powell's political position is rapidly eroding
and his days at the FCC may be few. His ham-handed moves for rich
cronies (ownership rules) has blown up in the Congress. The reversal
of those policy decisions is almost a certainty and his future
effectiveness is in question. Nepotism is always suspect even when the
charge is unfair. Viewing his comments on many subjects leaves one
increasingly uncomfortable with his tenure.
On the question of HDTV over cable and satellite, I think you are
being overly optimistic and not paying attention to the existing
disputes. As wide as those conduits may seem, there is real reluctance
to hand over that much bandwidth. That seems odd since the new ATSC
stations are allocated 6 megaHerz just like their predecessor NTSC
station. But cable systems can compress that NTSC signal without huge
protests to probably no more than 2 megabits per second but an HDTV
signal needs almost 20 megabits per second. So in a big city with say
20 stations you could end up with 400 Mbps just for locals instead of
40 Mbps or less.
Do you think the cable companies are willing to forgo the revenue from
10+ cable channels so you can enjoy a true HD signal from one local?
Until you get significant fiber to the home (and I don't mean cereal)
I just don't think the bandwidth is there. Of course the cable
companies will be glad to squeeze those channels as they see fit, but
that is the sort of detail that is delaying some current negotiations.
Finally the reason that the future of OTA HDTV is assured is because
of home recording. Of course that is why some want to kill OTA HDTV.
You can already record HD in complete fidelity (well it is just
recording the bitstream) with a firewire enabled 8-VSB set top box or
integrated receiver and a D-VHS deck. There are also a few different
PCI HDTV tuner cards that can record to your hard drive. The resulting
files can be played across a home network on other PC's. Contrast this
with the situation for cable and satellite. I predict you will never
be able to record, only time shift. After a short time the stored
program will be deleted. If you aren't willing to hack your equipment
you will never have more than tenuous access to the content. Just a
prediction.
David
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message news:hqZab.42584$NM1
>If COFDM HD receivers were used in the US they would be far less expensive
>than HD 8-VSB receivers.
COFDM would have totally destroyed the HDTV movement.
Look at what a nightmare it's been in England.
Bob Miller
month and around 3 million this year. Since the US is 6 times bigger than
the UK our sales would have to be 300,000 8-VSB receivers a week, 1.8
million a month and 20 million a year just to keep up.
What a country what a nightmare!!!
So how many 8-VSB receivers did we sell in the US last week, last month and
last year?
caleb thomas
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:15:27 GMT, "Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net>
wrote:
David
news:fl2qmv8s4bg98u0mj...@4ax.com...
> How many of those sold in the UK were HD? Just wondering:-)
None of them, of course.
Apparently, Bob's not too bright on that issue.
David
Have you thought about some continuing education programs?
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:PY6bb.43358$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
David
statement?
Maybe for each posting? Or perhaps Sinclair rewards you by the paragraph...
Looks like a pretty good setup. :)
How does that work for you?
"Bob Miller" <ro...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:d3Pab.39985$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...