COFDM Users
G-squared
North America firmly convinced that 8VSB Is the worst possible system.
My ATSC gear has worked well for over 2 years now so I have no
complaints but I would like to hear opinions from PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING
COFDM. Is it REALLY great? (Bob and Matthew please take a breath).
Europe and Australia -- What do YOU think?
GG
David
news:1135535238.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
GG,
I think there are more COFDM users/posters on the alt.video.digital-tv
group than here, also there is a myriad of overseas forums you can peruse,
like:
Australia:
http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showforum=12
and England:
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=64
Tons of postings about tiny indoor antennas and "simple plug n' play" COFDM
reception. . . ;-)
Neil - Salem, MA USA
news:1135535238.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your post motivated me to look for web sites from the UK regarding digital
TV. To my surprise, I discovered I held a misconception about the ease of
reception of DTV there. I was under the impression that it was easy to
receive digital TV in the UK with a simple small set-top antenna, but that
is not the case. On the government's web site:
http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/FAQ/faq_home.html
it says, "Set top aerials are unlikely to work as effectively for digital
signals as for analogue. If you are in a coverage area close to a
transmitter set top aerials are more likely to work well but reception may
still prove unreliable, or may be more susceptible to weather or atmospheric
changes. The best option to receive digital television through an aerial is
to use an appropriate roof or loft aerial."
Interesting. Suddenly ATSC is looking better to me.
We know that 5th generation receiver technology from LG has demonstrated
that excellent ATSC reception is possible using nothing more than a simple
indoor set-top antenna. Unfortunately, LG has not yet seen fit to sell
set-top ATSC receivers using this technology. However, LG is not the only
player in the game. It's just a matter of time before some manufacturer (or
LG) begins to market just such a receiver (especially when the government
begins subsidizing digital set-top receivers in an effort to get people to
convert to digital).
Neil
Salem, MA USA
Bob Miller
> "G-squared" <stra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135535238.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Lets hear from some folks who actually USE COFDM. There are folks in
>>North America firmly convinced that 8VSB Is the worst possible system.
>>My ATSC gear has worked well for over 2 years now so I have no
>>complaints but I would like to hear opinions from PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING
>>COFDM. Is it REALLY great? (Bob and Matthew please take a breath).
>>Europe and Australia -- What do YOU think?
>>
>>GG
>
>
> Your post motivated me to look for web sites from the UK regarding digital
> TV. To my surprise, I discovered I held a misconception about the ease of
> reception of DTV there. I was under the impression that it was easy to
> receive digital TV in the UK with a simple small set-top antenna, but that
> is not the case. On the government's web site:
>
> http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/FAQ/faq_home.html
>
> it says, "Set top aerials are unlikely to work as effectively for digital
> signals as for analogue. If you are in a coverage area close to a
> transmitter set top aerials are more likely to work well but reception may
> still prove unreliable, or may be more susceptible to weather or atmospheric
> changes. The best option to receive digital television through an aerial is
> to use an appropriate roof or loft aerial."
>
> Interesting. Suddenly ATSC is looking better to me.
>
transmitters are at very low power. For example a full power station
might be at ONE million WATTS while the highest powered digital station
is at only TWENTY thousand WATTS. Also there are only 80 transmitter
sites for digital while analog has many times that number.
UK analog
http://www.wolfbane.com/uktv.htm
UK digital
http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm
Once analog is turned off the digital power levels will be increased.
And while operating at this miniscule level of power, averaging 3 kW,
the UK has seen the sale of around TEN million COFDM receivers in a
nation of only 25 million homes.
Should also mention that if you want to compare 8-VSB and COFDM as far
as reception it would be better to pick a country that uses 8K COFDM.
That is most other countries in the world. The UK was so excited with
COFDM that they went ahead with the 2K system which is not nearly as
good as 8K. At analog turnoff the UK will switch to an 8K COFDM system.
And one last thing. The UK government site has to make the worst case
scenario for digital. The public has figured it out however that
reception is very good with indoor antennas and they have been scarfing
up COFDM receivers at an ever increasing rate for over three years now.
In France which only started this year with digital the uptake is even
higher and they are using 8K COFDM. They will have sold over TWO Million
receivers by the end of this year.
> We know that 5th generation receiver technology from LG has demonstrated
> that excellent ATSC reception is possible using nothing more than a simple
> indoor set-top antenna. Unfortunately, LG has not yet seen fit to sell
> set-top ATSC receivers using this technology. However, LG is not the only
> player in the game. It's just a matter of time before some manufacturer (or
> LG) begins to market just such a receiver (especially when the government
> begins subsidizing digital set-top receivers in an effort to get people to
> convert to digital).
>
Actually we were the ones who tested those 5th gen receivers and yes
they work reasonably well. The trouble is as you pointed out that there
is only ONE of them after 18 months of waiting. It did work with a
simple indoor antenna however it was NOT as good as a 1999 COFDM
receiver. It was still easily defeated by simply standing in a position
on either side of it or walking in front of it.
And as you say its maker, LG, can't make it or can't make it at a profit
while they can make COFDM receivers for Australia, a country only 1/16th
the size of the US.
I believe that says it all. LG, the biggest beneficiary of 8-VSB, they
own the patents, can't make it work.
And those converters planned for 2009 at $50? Don't bet on it. Don't bet
that they will be anywhere near the quality of the 5th gen LG prototype.
I have been to a Congressional demonstration of such an SD ONLY out
8-VSB converter and the cynicism of the Congressional aides and that of
those demonstrating the converter was only outdone by the poor design of
the actually converter.
It is at meeting like this that the price of $50 is created and those in
attendance didn't even know what the IP cost was for such a receiver.
The cost being bandied about started at $70 sans IP cost and then
drifted down to $50 with IP up in the air. This was done simply to match
the expectation of the Congressional aides who wanted to hear the
magical number.
If 5th gen LG prototype tech appears in one of these converters I will
be very surprised.
Bob Miller
> Neil
> Salem, MA USA
>
>
>
David
news:4KTrf.9755$3Z....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Did you respond to the posting below regarding your daughter's computer? Are
you a coward?
G-squared
world. No multipath issues, no power penalties. Then you say the Brits
will only get good reception when the analog is turned off and the
COFDM power is turned up. How come when the ATSC is at reduced power
YOU say going to full power will NOT help but with COFDM going to full
power WILL help ? 20kW should be sufficient for those folks only a few
miles away. Or are THEIR receivers not great either? All the while,
there are folks on THIS list with good results with ATSC.
As far as your garbage explanations about the cost not coming down on
gen 5 receivers, MORE CRAP. I had a $900 CD player in 1983 dollars. You
know what they cost now. Ditto for the first DVD players. In '86 I had
a $2400 PC with mono monitor, 1 meg ram, NO hard drive. Most people
reading this will get the point.
Just in passing, last summer we were playing a 2" quad tape of 'The
Johnny Cash' show. It was about the best video you could do in 1970.
The tape machine was working correctly but the 1970 cameras weren't
good BY TODAYS STANDARDS. The point is, the hardware WILL improve. Get
over it and have a happy new year.
GG
Bruce Tomlin
"G-squared" <stra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So Bob, just what IS your story? You say COFDM is God's Gift to the
> world. No multipath issues, no power penalties. Then you say the Brits
> will only get good reception when the analog is turned off and the
> COFDM power is turned up. How come when the ATSC is at reduced power
> YOU say going to full power will NOT help but with COFDM going to full
> power WILL help ? 20kW should be sufficient for those folks only a few
> miles away. Or are THEIR receivers not great either? All the while,
> there are folks on THIS list with good results with ATSC.
And if COFDM is such a smashing success, why are they still operating on
reduced power? Most people here in the US are only now finding out
about OTA digital TV, after most stations have already gone to full
power, and many of the ones that haven't have technical reasons why they
can't yet.
phil-new...@ipal.net
I think we really won't know for sure until we can find someone that uses
BOTH systems and can actually compare. And then we have to find such
people using both in a wide variety of situations, such as distance from
transmitter.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-squared
I'm not expecting comparisons. But if a lot of users are having good or
bad luck, that would be telling. All I know is some of the analog UHFs
in 90274 are truly awful on multipath while some are just fine. Nearly
all the TV comes from Mt Wilson about 35 miles away and while I do not
have a totally clear line-of sight, I have no trouble with any of the
DTVs. I assume some of them must suffer from similar multipath issues
but the Samsung and ATI both work fine. So, if it is so bad, why does
it work?
GG
Bob Miller
Didn't say that. Said that they would get better coverage and even
easier reception at full power. That fact is that even at an average
power of only 3 kW an with only 5% as many transmitters they are getting
very good reception in the UK. So good in fact that 10 million
receivers have been sold in a country with only 35 million homes.
More power in the absence of problems with multipath means just easier
reception at greater distances.
> How come when the ATSC is at reduced power
> YOU say going to full power will NOT help but with COFDM going to full
> power WILL help ? 20kW should be sufficient for those folks only a few
> miles away. Or are THEIR receivers not great either? All the while,
> there are folks on THIS list with good results with ATSC.
>
Going to full power does not help with multipath since the multipath
signal increases in power right along with the main signal. COFDM does
not have a problem with multipath so increases in power do help with
reception. Also "reduced power" with 8-VSB is in most cases higher than
full power in the UK.
> As far as your garbage explanations about the cost not coming down on
> gen 5 receivers, MORE CRAP. I had a $900 CD player in 1983 dollars. You
> know what they cost now. Ditto for the first DVD players. In '86 I had
> a $2400 PC with mono monitor, 1 meg ram, NO hard drive. Most people
> reading this will get the point.
>
The difference is that there is no demand for 8-VSB receivers. Demand is
so low in fact that the FCC had to mandate receivers into TV sets to
force people who didn't know any better to buy receivers they didn't
need or want so that the FCC could pretend that there was a digital
transition.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
>
The biggest technical problem is the cost of electricity.
In the UK they are still operating on reduced power so that digital does
not interfere with analog.
In the US the reason is to save money for broadcasters.
They have less spectrum for digital in the UK so while analog is still
being broadcast digital would mess it up royal.
In the US we had a lot more spectrum so that every TV station was given
another 6 MHz channel to do digital with.
As mentioned before full power and low power are also different concepts
in the UK and the US.
Low power in the UK means a top power of 20 Kw, average power of 3 kW
and a lot of stations at power levels like 100 WATTS.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
based on COFDM would work for all, allow on channel repeaters which
would save oodles of spectrum and would work for SFN's. All things 8-VSB
can only aspire to do someday.
And a COFDM modulation would allow the reception of DTV mobile and
portable. It would entice many more manufacturers into making receivers
for the US. It would lower cost for antennas.
The larger markets for COFDM would allow for savings because of scale.
And allowing COFDM in the US would also allow us to switch to MPEG4
which can handle at least twice the programming that MPEG2 can and will
only increase as MPEG4 matures.
After all MPEG2 and 8-VSB can not even handle HD very well which is the
reason for all this hassle in the first place.
A switch to MPEG4 should be reason enough to demand a change. If a
change to MPEG4 is good then we should look into the modulation being
used since things have changed since 1998.
You ask "if it is bad why does it work". With a question like that we
should also listen to the many who say "If it is so bad why does it work
about NTSC and ask why we should go to digital in the first place.
And NTSC works fine for a lot of people.
Bob Miller
SAC 441
to provide high definition locals and other programming in coming
years.With 14 million MPEG-2 customers already and that potential slice
of the market ready to switch as soon as all 4 SPACEWAY satelites are
launched,who in the heck cares about terestrial propagation except a
small minority in the US? As far as cable,Comcast and Time-Warner is not
going to sit still either.I think over the air signals in the US will
eventually be gone in 20 years......so who CARES whether COFDM or 8-VSB
exists or not? SPACE DELIVERED signals are the US future,NOT
terrestrial.Making Mr.Miller's arguments totally irrelevant.
Bob Miller
only have pay services. I am arguing that terrestrial is better and a
source of free OTA programming and should be preserved but if you don't
think that then there is no issue.
Disagree with you however on space. Think its days are numbered. I think
terrestrial wireless is where it is at for both broadcast and two way
mobile broadband.
The most promising may be statollites IMO which promises the lowest cost
and best coverage and the most stable source for TV, cell phone and
broadcast. That is using flying balloons at 13 mile altitudes. For fixed
high bandwidth broadband I think that directional radios in the 60 to 90
GHz will prevail.
Time will tell.
But it will not be 8-VSB and MPEG2 for DTV terrestrial for long so we
should be trying to get a change underway as soon as possible.
Bob Miller
G-squared
There are a lot of stupid people throwing good money after bad. Here's
a list
http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/issues/digitaltv/DTVStations.asp
How many billion $ wrong are they?
Happy New Year
gg
David
just datacasting $$$ propaganda.
An informative article about reception from Mt. Wilson, California:
"Voilà! The interference was down by almost 20dB, and the previously missing
DTV signals from KABC and KCBS suddenly materialized-along with 12 other
stations."
Full article:
http://ultimateavmag.com/howto/405hdtv/
G-squared
Perhaps so, but are all these people just stupid? Here's a list.
http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp
How many billions for this list?
GG
Bruce Tomlin
SAC...@webtv.net (SAC 441) wrote:
What's the monthly charge for that? I pay $0.00 monthly for my OTA.
SAC 441
continent.(675 million perhaps between the US and Canada and Mexico).I
have heard the FCC and Congress estimates that about 37 million people
still receive a TV signal
via terrestrial OTA.The others are CATV (which is predominant) and the
rest telco and satellite.
Despite what people think,CATV (cable) is a mass delivered SPACE-BORNE
signal.They still use a massive satellite dish and distribute it
community-wide for TV reception (as well as broadband internet).The
other space borne signals are DBS which works essentially the same
way,except it goes to your house or account DIRECTLY.Telco could be
considered terrestrial,but as yet,they are strictly a small slice of the
market.
As an anecdotal observation,the recent ending of "Monday Night
Football" on an over the air network (ABC) to a CABLE network (ESPN) is
more evidence of the popularity and dominance of pay networks and
services.In my opinion,this trend to pay networks and cable will only
INCREASE in the future.Conventional over the air networks may be around
for some time yet,but they are diminishing and getting smaller in
influence and the amount of demographics they cover.
So in MY opinion,(just as Bob Miller states his)
I think this 8-VSB vs. COFDM argument is trivial at best because it
covers a diminishing viewing segment.Sorry,but cable/satellite is IT,and
the numbers say so......I am neutral on the whole issue,but apparently
the American consumer has spoken.
Sammy
"G-squared" <stra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Booby is about to have an orgasm.
SAC 441
----"What's the monthly charge for that? I pay
$0.00 monthly for my OTA."----
Reply:
True,I have no doubt.To those who rely exclusively on OTA reception,they
are probably
fiercely loyal and will not change.I just suggested they are a
diminishing demographic of the US TV population.Others like me have made
a dichotomy of the viewing public that have made a choice where we do
not mind paying for our TV choices because the OTA choice is rather
LIMITED compared to over the air offerings.We LIKE the choice of having
a 500 channel (or more) universe of TV selections which we are not
afraid of paying $20 to $100 per month to acquire.It is a matter of
taste,I guess.More power to you if you are satisfied with the parse OTA
offerings (at least in my area anyway).All 88 million CATV subscribers
and approximately 24 million DBS subsribers just want a better
selection.
Jeff Rife
> There is not even one billion people on the whole North American
> continent.(675 million perhaps between the US and Canada and Mexico).I
> have heard the FCC and Congress estimates that about 37 million people
> still receive a TV signal via terrestrial OTA.
This is the number for people in homes (US) that are exclusively OTA. The
number of people in homes with at least one TV that is used to receive OTA is
approximately 210 million.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/HDTV.gif
SAC 441
----"This is the number for people in homes (US) that are exclusively
OTA.The number of people in homes with at least one TV that is used to
receive OTA is 210 million."----
Reply:
I stand corrected.However,these additional households still use an
ALTERNATE means of delivery for other sets within the household.My point
is,they are not exclusive to other methods.
Bob Miller
their hold on Congress has produced some of the best returns of any
business in history. To keep that cash flowing they were required to
broadcast in digital by a date specific. So they did.
This insured them that they would maintain their monopoly and their must
carry rights for an unknown period of time. It also insured that they
would be able to keep competitors from using spectrum above channel 51
to compete with them for some period of time.
That deadline was moved from 2006 all the way to 2009 and who knows how
far they will move it into the future when the new "deadline" comes.
The money they put into digital broadcasting both initially and each
month in their electric bills is worth it and as one broadcaster told me
"it is the dues we pay for must carry".
What broadcasters real intent is will not be known until they have
secured multicast mustcarry and can commence multicasting in earnest.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
never been offered a service like is being offered in the UK. They are
being herded like sheep to cable and satellite.
In the UK cable and satellite are stagnant. It is OTA that is booming.
Same in France and Italy. Japan is booming in OTA.
OTA is the future accept in the US where an ignorant public is being
ripped off by broadcasters and satellite by imposing an expensive and
backward modulation on OTA which many are now coming to the conclusion
may have been done on purpose to kill OTA.
Remember that broadcasters are demanding multicast mustcarry and are
also holding out for payment from cable and satellite for their content.
If they are getting paid for their content on cable or satellite then
every OTA user is lost revenue.
Please just think about that for a moment.
Broadcasters are not wedded to their OTA spectrum, they are wedded to
cable and satellite.
It is a pretzel of a problem for them. They have to show some dedication
to OTA since they only have must carry because of their OTA spectrum
licenses. But they don't want anymore OTA viewers than the minimum to
maintain their spectrum, licenses and must carry rights.
It is complicated but believe me they have figured out what side of
their bread is buttered and where the butter comes from. It is NOT from
OTA TV or DTV viewers.
Bob Miller
G-squared
SAC 441 wrote:
> There is not even one billion people on the whole North American
> continent.(675 million perhaps between the US and Canada and Mexico).I
> have heard the FCC and Congress estimates that about 37 million people
I'm sorry. I didn't mean billions of people. There are 1550 DTV
stations on line. If each spent 1 million dollars, that is 1.55 billion
dollars. While some operations may be less than a million, I would bet
on average it's well over that. So my question was, are all those
millions spent by people too stupid to know better? After all,
broadcasters are NOT here to entertain you. The entertainment is to get
you to watch the commercials so that they can MAKE money.
GG
Jeff Rife
> > OTA.The number of people in homes with at least one TV that is used to
> > receive OTA is 210 million."----
>
> ALTERNATE means of delivery for other sets within the household.My point
> is,they are not exclusive to other methods.
True, but in each of these households, at least one TV is used for OTA.
Because of that, much about why the money is being spent by a lot of TV
stations is more easily understood. TV stations can't turn off their
transmitters and survive solely from the cable and satellite viewers.
If they could, there would be a lot more local "cable only" stations than
there are.
--
Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
| Turn, turn, turn.
| Tell us the lesson
| That we should learn"
| -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
r
> G-squared wrote:
>> phil-new...@ipal.net wrote:
>>
> Works for you, doesn't for many others. A better modulation like one based
> on COFDM would work for all, allow on channel repeaters which would save
> oodles of spectrum and would work for SFN's. All things 8-VSB can only
> aspire to do someday.
>
I first received OTA in Modesto, CA from Sacramento, 80 miles to the
north. Recenty moved to Washington, am receiver 5 OTA stations over
50 miles away. There's a very large mountain between me and the
transmitters
on Queen Anne Hill in Seattle. Perfect reception. I have yet to meet the
"many others" that you refer to. Haven't heard from anyone receiving HDTV
via COFDM yet.
Sammy
Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The American consumer has never been given a chance to speak. They have
> never been offered a service like is being offered in the UK. They are
> being herded like sheep to cable and satellite.
And you'd like to heard the American people like sheep into COFDM and
your failed company. Booby, see a psychiatrist about something called
obsession and compulsion. I'm sure it too late for you to be saved, but
miracles do happen.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| The American consumer has never been given a chance to speak. They have
| never been offered a service like is being offered in the UK. They are
| being herded like sheep to cable and satellite.
And what makes you think Americans would ask for the kind of service
that is being offered in UK? The whole existing TV broadcasting
structure is all different. What the UK does wouldn't readily work
in the USA.
| In the UK cable and satellite are stagnant. It is OTA that is booming.
| Same in France and Italy. Japan is booming in OTA.
Maybe because their cable and satellite systems have not offered as much?
| OTA is the future accept in the US where an ignorant public is being
| ripped off by broadcasters and satellite by imposing an expensive and
| backward modulation on OTA which many are now coming to the conclusion
| may have been done on purpose to kill OTA.
It is only expensive because manufacturers choose to make it so.
It is not backwards at all, only different. Although 8-VSB would
not have been my first choice, it would be ahead of COFDM.
| Remember that broadcasters are demanding multicast mustcarry and are
| also holding out for payment from cable and satellite for their content.
| If they are getting paid for their content on cable or satellite then
| every OTA user is lost revenue.
That does not describe every broadcaster.
| Please just think about that for a moment.
And facts change in that moment?
| It is complicated but believe me they have figured out what side of
| their bread is buttered and where the butter comes from. It is NOT from
| OTA TV or DTV viewers.
Sure, most viewers are on cable or satellite. So what. The fact that they
are required to serve one group to be sure to get access to serve the other
group just means we all get more.
Bob Miller
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:04:55 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | The American consumer has never been given a chance to speak. They have
> | never been offered a service like is being offered in the UK. They are
> | being herded like sheep to cable and satellite.
>
> And what makes you think Americans would ask for the kind of service
> that is being offered in UK? The whole existing TV broadcasting
> structure is all different. What the UK does wouldn't readily work
> in the USA.
>
>
> | In the UK cable and satellite are stagnant. It is OTA that is booming.
> | Same in France and Italy. Japan is booming in OTA.
>
> Maybe because their cable and satellite systems have not offered as much?
>
mostly opted for satellite.
http://www.sky.com/ordersky/whatson
>
> | OTA is the future accept in the US where an ignorant public is being
> | ripped off by broadcasters and satellite by imposing an expensive and
> | backward modulation on OTA which many are now coming to the conclusion
> | may have been done on purpose to kill OTA.
>
> It is only expensive because manufacturers choose to make it so.
> It is not backwards at all, only different. Although 8-VSB would
> not have been my first choice, it would be ahead of COFDM.
>
So what would have been your choice? There isn't much after 8-VSB and
COFDM based systems that I know of.
Manufacturers have chosen to make 8-VSB expensive and COFDM inexpensive?
Why would they do that? it is in the interest of LG to see that a lot of
8-VSB gets sold. They own most of the patents on it. Yet they have
CHOSEN to NOT make 8-VSB STB's for the US market at all while making
COFDM receivers for Australia. There is NO sense in that or what you say
if 8-VSB is or could be as inexpensive as COFDM or if they could make
money on 8-VSB.
As it is LG will only make 8-VSB receivers for customers who buy in
massive bulk. TV manufacturers or for STB's for satellite. Nothing for
the stand alone market.
>
> | Remember that broadcasters are demanding multicast mustcarry and are
> | also holding out for payment from cable and satellite for their content.
> | If they are getting paid for their content on cable or satellite then
> | every OTA user is lost revenue.
>
> That does not describe every broadcaster.
>
Right, broadcasters who have content no one wants don't get paid.
>
> | Please just think about that for a moment.
>
> And facts change in that moment?
>
No but mulling around the fact that broadcasters are in a conflict of
interest over the use of their OTA spectrum should go far in explaining
the otherwise irrational behavior they have exhibited the last ten years.
They must use their spectrum or forfeit must carry rights. If they do a
good job of using their spectrum they will entice lots of cable
customers to the free OTA service and away from the service that allows
them to participate in the cash flow that is cable delivery.
Since most of their ad revenue also comes from the cable side since that
is where the numbers are they have to be there. They have to walk a
balance beam trying to pretend that OTA is important when it isn't.
Trying to hold onto the OTA spectrum while not pushing its use much.
There supporters in Congress understand all this and help them to keep
the mystery going but if the citizenry decided that they want their OTA
spectrum to offer something that could be received easily and would
undercut cable Congress would have to act.
>
> | It is complicated but believe me they have figured out what side of
> | their bread is buttered and where the butter comes from. It is NOT from
> | OTA TV or DTV viewers.
>
> Sure, most viewers are on cable or satellite. So what. The fact that they
> are required to serve one group to be sure to get access to serve the other
> group just means we all get more.
>
NO we get less and pay more. With a properly engineered OTA broadcast
coverage and power design and the right modulation and codec the public
could/would be offered far more at far less.
In markets where the Telco's first offer cable competition using fiber
cable bills drop like a rock. OTA could do the same and with an
infrastructure that cost 1/50th of cable it would put cable out of business.
The future, cable becomes broadband, satellite goes away, fiber and
wireless compete for mega broadband with cable, more OTA TV spectrum is
sold for use by new age broadcasters and broadband providers. Cell phone
companies find competition from broadband providers using wireless
increases. VOIP anywhere becomes the thing. At least in all populated
areas and much of cell phone revenue is siphoned off by wireless mobile
broadband.
Those that have trouble affording cable and those who already can't
afford it or simply don't want to pay a lot for cable will gravitate to
Netflix type offerings plus broadband delivery of content. The more
expensive cable and fiber plants will have a harder time competing as
time goes on. Wireless broadband from one carrier that can be received
mobile or fixed wins out IMO.
Where does that leave OTA broadcasting? Delivery of one way IP data to
all forms of receivers including mobile and portable. Yes that will
include all the HD the market demands but it can't be done with 8-VSB
and MPEG2.
There is NO market for another competitor in the living room. Cable,
wireless broadband and fiber broadband win there. OTA is shut out. Where
OTA wins is in the kitchen, bedroom, backyard, car, train or everywhere
else on a myriad of receivers and in conjunction with mobile broadband.
An adjunct to broadband. And the mobile aspect is transparent not
central to this scenario. The key is that this form of reception is
ubiquitous. It just works everywhere all the time.
Cell phones are only the vanguard of mobile and portable "TV" revolution
coming.
I really don't see how anything but wireless, broadcasting and
broadband, survives long term. 8-VSB and MPEG2 are just short term
holding junk while broadcasters think about what they really want. As
soon as they have some idea they will tell Congress and they will be
given whatever it is.
There will be little talk of what is right or best for consumers anymore
than there was for 8-VSB and MPEG2. There will be very little talk about
legacy receivers.
Bob Miller
phil-new...@ipal.net
| phil-new...@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:04:55 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
|> | OTA is the future accept in the US where an ignorant public is being
|> | ripped off by broadcasters and satellite by imposing an expensive and
|> | backward modulation on OTA which many are now coming to the conclusion
|> | may have been done on purpose to kill OTA.
|>
|> It is only expensive because manufacturers choose to make it so.
|> It is not backwards at all, only different. Although 8-VSB would
|> not have been my first choice, it would be ahead of COFDM.
|>
| So what would have been your choice? There isn't much after 8-VSB and
| COFDM based systems that I know of.
A variation of QAM using a hexagonal lattice (instead of a quadrature one,
with the points being used confined within a circle of radius 8.544004 for
a total of 265 points. The points used would be selected so that several
"out of band" syncronizing and idling patterns can be defined. This would
be more points in a smaller space than QAM-256 which has a maximum radius
of almost 10.606602 at the 4 corners.
| Manufacturers have chosen to make 8-VSB expensive and COFDM inexpensive?
| Why would they do that? it is in the interest of LG to see that a lot of
| 8-VSB gets sold. They own most of the patents on it. Yet they have
| CHOSEN to NOT make 8-VSB STB's for the US market at all while making
| COFDM receivers for Australia. There is NO sense in that or what you say
| if 8-VSB is or could be as inexpensive as COFDM or if they could make
| money on 8-VSB.
Probably because they don't want to invest so much in research on the OTA
market they believe to be vanishing in the USA. Of course it will be a
self-fulfilling prophecy. There may be other factors such as under the
table deals to derail OTA TV.
They could make 8-VSB as cheap as COFDM if they would invest in the
research. They clearly are in a better position than anyone else.
If they think 8-VSB won't ever sell, then maybe they should put their
patents for it up for sale to the highest bidder on EBAY. I suspect
they know it will sell, but there is some other reason.
| As it is LG will only make 8-VSB receivers for customers who buy in
| massive bulk. TV manufacturers or for STB's for satellite. Nothing for
| the stand alone market.
If they are just going to make the chips, fine, as long as they will
sell to anyone who wants to make standalone STBs.
But they still need to get the price on the chips down to a level that
can be worked into small portable TV sets for which OTA is the only
practical means to get a signal. Tell me when you see a small TV set
that includes a DTV tuner.
|> | Remember that broadcasters are demanding multicast mustcarry and are
|> | also holding out for payment from cable and satellite for their content.
|> | If they are getting paid for their content on cable or satellite then
|> | every OTA user is lost revenue.
|>
|> That does not describe every broadcaster.
|>
| Right, broadcasters who have content no one wants don't get paid.
If no one wants it, no one would tune in. They'd figured that out and
put something else on.
They aren't that dumb. They will put on content someone wants. But
they may choose to put on content for niche markets, and I think that
is a good thing. This is why I think multicast-must-carry is needed.
Even with MCMC, a broadcaster will be using LESS of a cable system's
bandwidth than with analog because QAM-256 can get around twice the
bit rate over the same 6 MHz as 8-VSB will over the air. So even with
MCMC, the cable system recovers half the bandwidth by going digital
and carrying all broadcaster subchannels. They will have to reserve
that much bandwidth in case the broadcaster goes to single cast HD.
|> | Please just think about that for a moment.
|>
|> And facts change in that moment?
|>
| No but mulling around the fact that broadcasters are in a conflict of
| interest over the use of their OTA spectrum should go far in explaining
| the otherwise irrational behavior they have exhibited the last ten years.
|
| They must use their spectrum or forfeit must carry rights. If they do a
| good job of using their spectrum they will entice lots of cable
| customers to the free OTA service and away from the service that allows
| them to participate in the cash flow that is cable delivery.
This is fixable. The MCMC law can be made to require that a broadcaster
that elects must-carry of any kind cannot collect any revenue from any
carriage. So they will have to choose between being a free provider and
negotiating with every cable system. IMHO, this should be a blanket
choice, not a choice per cable system, filed with the FCC.
It seems the negotiations with cable systems are not going so well with
the broadcasters if they have to be asking Congress for MCMC.
| Since most of their ad revenue also comes from the cable side since that
| is where the numbers are they have to be there. They have to walk a
| balance beam trying to pretend that OTA is important when it isn't.
| Trying to hold onto the OTA spectrum while not pushing its use much.
Viewers that move from using cable to using OTA are neutral with respect
to ad revenues. One viewer is one viewer.
| There supporters in Congress understand all this and help them to keep
| the mystery going but if the citizenry decided that they want their OTA
| spectrum to offer something that could be received easily and would
| undercut cable Congress would have to act.
|> Sure, most viewers are on cable or satellite. So what. The fact that they
|> are required to serve one group to be sure to get access to serve the other
|> group just means we all get more.
|>
| NO we get less and pay more. With a properly engineered OTA broadcast
| coverage and power design and the right modulation and codec the public
| could/would be offered far more at far less.
|
| In markets where the Telco's first offer cable competition using fiber
| cable bills drop like a rock. OTA could do the same and with an
| infrastructure that cost 1/50th of cable it would put cable out of business.
Cable will have to go fiber.
| The future, cable becomes broadband, satellite goes away, fiber and
| wireless compete for mega broadband with cable, more OTA TV spectrum is
| sold for use by new age broadcasters and broadband providers. Cell phone
| companies find competition from broadband providers using wireless
| increases. VOIP anywhere becomes the thing. At least in all populated
| areas and much of cell phone revenue is siphoned off by wireless mobile
| broadband.
|
| Those that have trouble affording cable and those who already can't
| afford it or simply don't want to pay a lot for cable will gravitate to
| Netflix type offerings plus broadband delivery of content. The more
| expensive cable and fiber plants will have a harder time competing as
| time goes on. Wireless broadband from one carrier that can be received
| mobile or fixed wins out IMO.
|
| Where does that leave OTA broadcasting? Delivery of one way IP data to
| all forms of receivers including mobile and portable. Yes that will
| include all the HD the market demands but it can't be done with 8-VSB
| and MPEG2.
Switching to MPEG4 has nothing to do with the modulation.
| There is NO market for another competitor in the living room. Cable,
| wireless broadband and fiber broadband win there. OTA is shut out. Where
| OTA wins is in the kitchen, bedroom, backyard, car, train or everywhere
| else on a myriad of receivers and in conjunction with mobile broadband.
| An adjunct to broadband. And the mobile aspect is transparent not
| central to this scenario. The key is that this form of reception is
| ubiquitous. It just works everywhere all the time.
My intent is to use OTA and satellite.
| Cell phones are only the vanguard of mobile and portable "TV" revolution
| coming.
|
| I really don't see how anything but wireless, broadcasting and
| broadband, survives long term. 8-VSB and MPEG2 are just short term
| holding junk while broadcasters think about what they really want. As
| soon as they have some idea they will tell Congress and they will be
| given whatever it is.
Which will be MPEG4.
| There will be little talk of what is right or best for consumers anymore
| than there was for 8-VSB and MPEG2. There will be very little talk about
| legacy receivers.
Until Congress ends up dealing with it.
Bob Miller
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:56:05 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | phil-new...@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:04:55 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> |> | OTA is the future accept in the US where an ignorant public is being
> |> | ripped off by broadcasters and satellite by imposing an expensive and
> |> | backward modulation on OTA which many are now coming to the conclusion
> |> | may have been done on purpose to kill OTA.
> |>
> |> It is only expensive because manufacturers choose to make it so.
> |> It is not backwards at all, only different. Although 8-VSB would
> |> not have been my first choice, it would be ahead of COFDM.
> |>
> | So what would have been your choice? There isn't much after 8-VSB and
> | COFDM based systems that I know of.
>
> A variation of QAM using a hexagonal lattice (instead of a quadrature one,
> with the points being used confined within a circle of radius 8.544004 for
> a total of 265 points. The points used would be selected so that several
> "out of band" syncronizing and idling patterns can be defined. This would
> be more points in a smaller space than QAM-256 which has a maximum radius
> of almost 10.606602 at the 4 corners.
>
want to start fiddling with another "variation of QAM". Why? Why is
COFDM an unacceptable variation of QAM and why would your variation be
better? Better at what?
Of course I have nothing against better. If there is better then that is
what should be used. The Chinese DMB-T is something we have been
interested in but news is scarce.
>
> | Manufacturers have chosen to make 8-VSB expensive and COFDM inexpensive?
> | Why would they do that? it is in the interest of LG to see that a lot of
> | 8-VSB gets sold. They own most of the patents on it. Yet they have
> | CHOSEN to NOT make 8-VSB STB's for the US market at all while making
> | COFDM receivers for Australia. There is NO sense in that or what you say
> | if 8-VSB is or could be as inexpensive as COFDM or if they could make
> | money on 8-VSB.
>
> Probably because they don't want to invest so much in research on the OTA
> market they believe to be vanishing in the USA. Of course it will be a
> self-fulfilling prophecy. There may be other factors such as under the
> table deals to derail OTA TV.
>
No one has spent money and gone to the mat over 8-VSB like LG. They are
the ones to benefit most and they are the ones who made it happen.
> They could make 8-VSB as cheap as COFDM if they would invest in the
> research. They clearly are in a better position than anyone else.
>
They could make 8-VSB a lot cheaper if they just lowered their royalty
demands to the same figure as DVB-T COFDM. They charge 10 times as much.
> If they think 8-VSB won't ever sell, then maybe they should put their
> patents for it up for sale to the highest bidder on EBAY. I suspect
> they know it will sell, but there is some other reason.
>
>
> | As it is LG will only make 8-VSB receivers for customers who buy in
> | massive bulk. TV manufacturers or for STB's for satellite. Nothing for
> | the stand alone market.
>
> If they are just going to make the chips, fine, as long as they will
> sell to anyone who wants to make standalone STBs.
>
Yes and those entities exist. They just, one by one, make the same
decision as LG and drop out. We have been through three such companies
so far. All excited at first and then a quiet spell and then the news
that they have changed their minds.
> But they still need to get the price on the chips down to a level that
> can be worked into small portable TV sets for which OTA is the only
> practical means to get a signal. Tell me when you see a small TV set
> that includes a DTV tuner.
>
How about thus one which will receive HDTV.
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-10849-H.264+%28HDTV%29+compatible+pocket+TV.html
Not quite today anyway. One cable viewer who cancels and goes OTA is one
lost revenue source for the content owning broadcaster. And broadcasters
are thinking about making MORE revenue not less from their content.
>
> | There supporters in Congress understand all this and help them to keep
> | the mystery going but if the citizenry decided that they want their OTA
> | spectrum to offer something that could be received easily and would
> | undercut cable Congress would have to act.
>
>
> |> Sure, most viewers are on cable or satellite. So what. The fact that they
> |> are required to serve one group to be sure to get access to serve the other
> |> group just means we all get more.
> |>
> | NO we get less and pay more. With a properly engineered OTA broadcast
> | coverage and power design and the right modulation and codec the public
> | could/would be offered far more at far less.
> |
> | In markets where the Telco's first offer cable competition using fiber
> | cable bills drop like a rock. OTA could do the same and with an
> | infrastructure that cost 1/50th of cable it would put cable out of business.
>
> Cable will have to go fiber.
>
Can't see why that would help. They already have an expensive plant to
maintain. Adding an even more expensive one that duplicates the fiber
being installed by the Telcos will not help much in the short run and
would bankrupt them. The one thing that will slow the Telcos down is the
massive cost of fiber.
The one thing that cable can do is lower prices which they are doing.
OTA plant is much less expensive and OTA prices can be even lower and
OTA could offer something that fiber or cable can't, mobile and
portable. And OTA could offer that just as mobile and portable are about
to explode into the mainstream of video delivery. More "TV" will be
watched on spectrum that can deliver to fixed,portable and mobile
devices in 10 years by far then watch video on fixed living room sets.
>
> | The future, cable becomes broadband, satellite goes away, fiber and
> | wireless compete for mega broadband with cable, more OTA TV spectrum is
> | sold for use by new age broadcasters and broadband providers. Cell phone
> | companies find competition from broadband providers using wireless
> | increases. VOIP anywhere becomes the thing. At least in all populated
> | areas and much of cell phone revenue is siphoned off by wireless mobile
> | broadband.
> |
> | Those that have trouble affording cable and those who already can't
> | afford it or simply don't want to pay a lot for cable will gravitate to
> | Netflix type offerings plus broadband delivery of content. The more
> | expensive cable and fiber plants will have a harder time competing as
> | time goes on. Wireless broadband from one carrier that can be received
> | mobile or fixed wins out IMO.
> |
> | Where does that leave OTA broadcasting? Delivery of one way IP data to
> | all forms of receivers including mobile and portable. Yes that will
> | include all the HD the market demands but it can't be done with 8-VSB
> | and MPEG2.
>
> Switching to MPEG4 has nothing to do with the modulation.
>
Broadcasters need the best tools. They need to be able to use the
spectrum they have at its most efficient. They have to have a modulation
that delivers to the most eyeballs the most content in the most
situations possible to compete with cable and the Telcos. MPEG4 is a far
better tool than MPEG2.
The switch to MPEG4 has to come. Broadcasters will demand it. When it
does they will also demand a rethink on the modulation since a switch to
MPEG4 requires a new non-compatible receiver. If all receivers have to
be switched you might as well upgrade the modulation to state of the
art. There is absolutely NO reason not to do this. Hey they can also
take a new look at an upgraded 8-VSB. I don't care. As long as they
consider everything.
This will come as soon as broadcasters have multicast must carry sewn
up. Or soon after they feel the heat from the competition using COFDM
and MPEG4 on spectrum above channel 51. Or both. They are laying low and
keeping the cash cow NTSC going and working on multicast must carry for now.
Expect to hear them scream in pain that they have been hoodwinked by
COFDM. That promises that it would perform as good as COFDM and do
mobile and portable have not been kept. And then they will demand a
change and Congress with little fuss will give it too them. It will be
in the form of allowing COFDM just as was asked for in 1999 by Sinclair.
It may happen sooner like by late next year.
>
> | There is NO market for another competitor in the living room. Cable,
> | wireless broadband and fiber broadband win there. OTA is shut out. Where
> | OTA wins is in the kitchen, bedroom, backyard, car, train or everywhere
> | else on a myriad of receivers and in conjunction with mobile broadband.
> | An adjunct to broadband. And the mobile aspect is transparent not
> | central to this scenario. The key is that this form of reception is
> | ubiquitous. It just works everywhere all the time.
>
> My intent is to use OTA and satellite.
>
Satellite is the early one to die. In the UK they are already hurting.
>
> | Cell phones are only the vanguard of mobile and portable "TV" revolution
> | coming.
> |
> | I really don't see how anything but wireless, broadcasting and
> | broadband, survives long term. 8-VSB and MPEG2 are just short term
> | holding junk while broadcasters think about what they really want. As
> | soon as they have some idea they will tell Congress and they will be
> | given whatever it is.
>
> Which will be MPEG4.
>
>
> | There will be little talk of what is right or best for consumers anymore
> | than there was for 8-VSB and MPEG2. There will be very little talk about
> | legacy receivers.
>
> Until Congress ends up dealing with it.
>
When Congress starts dealing with it is when it gets real screwed up.
Bob Miller
Alan
>Big deal. COFDM is multiplexing. The modulation is already QAM. So you
>want to start fiddling with another "variation of QAM". Why? Why is
>COFDM an unacceptable variation of QAM and why would your variation be
>better? Better at what?
Actually, as I recall, COFDM is INVERSE MULTIPLEXING, just the opposite
of multiplexing.
Alan
Bob Miller
>
Technically correct but the more generic "multiplexing" is usually used
as it is in the name, COFDM.
Bob Miller
Jeff Rife
> They could make 8-VSB as cheap as COFDM if they would invest in the
> research.
8VSB receivers are cheaper than COFDM receivers...when you compare apples to
apples. There are no SD-only 8VSB receivers, and the HD decoding adds a lot
to the cost, so the correct thing to do is compare HD 8VSB receivers with
HD COFDM receivers.
When you do that, you can find HD 8VSB receivers for US$100-200 quite easily,
but HD COFDM receivers in Australia are AU$400-500, which is about
US$300-375.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LostNetworkPassword.gif
Leonard Caillouet
"Jeff Rife" <we...@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e22a1a46...@news.nabs.net...
> (phil-new...@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> They could make 8-VSB as cheap as COFDM if they would invest in the
>> research.
>
> 8VSB receivers are cheaper than COFDM receivers...when you compare apples
> to
> apples. There are no SD-only 8VSB receivers, and the HD decoding adds a
> lot
> to the cost, so the correct thing to do is compare HD 8VSB receivers with
> HD COFDM receivers.
>
> When you do that, you can find HD 8VSB receivers for US$100-200 quite
> easily,
> but HD COFDM receivers in Australia are AU$400-500, which is about
> US$300-375.
If you believe that differences in the technology between 8VSB and COFDM
account for cost differences in manufacturing that are anywhere near the
differences due to manufacturing scale, you are simply deluding yourselves
to support your argument. More SD COFDM receivers being made and sold means
lower prices. More HD 8VSB recievers being made and sold means lower
prices.
If there is some real information that supports significant cost differences
lets hear it.
Leonard
Bob Miller
> (phil-new...@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>They could make 8-VSB as cheap as COFDM if they would invest in the
>>research.
>
>
> 8VSB receivers are cheaper than COFDM receivers...when you compare apples to
> apples. There are no SD-only 8VSB receivers, and the HD decoding adds a lot
> to the cost, so the correct thing to do is compare HD 8VSB receivers with
> HD COFDM receivers.
>
> When you do that, you can find HD 8VSB receivers for US$100-200 quite easily,
> but HD COFDM receivers in Australia are AU$400-500, which is about
> US$300-375.
>
The US and Australia are vastly different markets.
When Australia decided to go digital most pundits thought that NO
manufacturer would make ANY receivers, SD or HD for the market since it
was so small.
Then there was their simulcast of HD and SD so that the market has a
choice of buying an HD receiver or an SD receiver.
Then there is the fact that with SD widescreen at 576i delivered
digitally you have a very decent image quality at the size of most
current TV sets and even those up to 42".
So in a VERY small market of only maybe 4 million homes, the US has 110
million homes, you have most people making a sensible choice and buying
SD receivers.
This makes the "possible" market for HD even smaller. Unlike in the US
where you have to buy an HD capable receiver even if it doesn't output
HD, as will be the case with 8-VSB converter boxes, in OZ you CAN buy an
SD only digital receiver.
The reality is that they have HD receivers being offered at any price in
OZ is remarkable.
It would be better to wait and see what COFDM HD receivers cost in
France for example.
Or you could compare SD COFDM receiver prices in the UK to SD COFDM
receiver prices in OZ and then extrapolate to what HD COFDM receiver
prices would cost in the UK if they were broadcasting HD.
But that would be comparing apples to apples and Jeff doesn't really
want to do that.
I will make a go of it though.
First we have to analyze the $100 to $200 price Jeff puts on "easily
obtained" 8-VSB prices. These are close-outs and open box specials and
ebay prices possibly. I know of no list prices or even normal priced
receivers that fall below $200.
If I were to look for COFDM SD receiver prices in the UK as Jeff does
for 8-VSB I would find less expensive ones also.
Here are two at $18 or $9 each, faulty also just like the 8-VSB
receivers you will find in open box specials.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ALBA-FREEVIEW-BOXES-X-2_W0QQitemZ5848577629QQcategoryZ96964QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
And here is one in good working order for $17.19
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pace-freeview-satellite-reciever-MSS100-1_W0QQitemZ5847833385QQcategoryZ96970QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
But to be intellectually honest and compare apples to apples we could
say that the normal "low" price for a COFDM SD receiver in the UK is
around $50 and the same in OZ, a much smaller market, is around $110,
though they do have one at $72.60. I could also find a receiver in the
UK at $35.
But on average $50 in the UK and $110 in OZ. That would be the market
differential. Then if we take a low priced HD receiver in OZ and
extrapolate it back to the UK and say they have HD broadcast and a
choice of buying COFDM SD or HD receivers we get a price of $299 OZ
dollars = $219.28 US dollars X 45.5% or $99.32 for a UK low priced HD
COFDM receiver.
http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=18
But if the market in the UK only allowed you to buy HD COFDM receivers.
That making HD the only possibility and therefore a much bigger market
like for 8-VSB in the US you could expect that $99.32 to be even lower.
There is no way to find that lower price though since no such market
exist. I suspect though that the low price today for a COFDM HD receiver
in a market like the US with no SD option would be in the range of $70.
Bob Miller
Jeff Rife
> If you believe that differences in the technology between 8VSB and COFDM
> account for cost differences in manufacturing that are anywhere near the
> differences due to manufacturing scale, you are simply deluding yourselves
> to support your argument.
I never said that.
I was only pointing out that 8VSB isn't an inherently more expensive
technology (which is Bob's assertion), and the prices of HD receivers support
my statement. *Why* it isn't inherently more expensive isn't any concern
to me.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/CheckTheGigabytes.gif
Jeff Rife
> The US and Australia are vastly different markets.
Still, you said that there would be US$50 HD COFDM receivers available
there by today (and US$100 COFDM receivers there this time last year).
Both predictions were wrong, as usual.
So...
> It would be better to wait and see what COFDM HD receivers cost in
> France for example.
>
> Or you could compare SD COFDM receiver prices in the UK to SD COFDM
> receiver prices in OZ and then extrapolate to what HD COFDM receiver
> prices would cost in the UK if they were broadcasting HD.
...you will be just as wrong about this.
> I will make a go of it though.
>
> [drivel snipped]
>
As usual, Bob posts a lot of dreck that will turn out to be 100% wrong.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/PaperOrPlastic.gif
Bob Miller
> Leonard Caillouet (n...@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>If you believe that differences in the technology between 8VSB and COFDM
>>account for cost differences in manufacturing that are anywhere near the
>>differences due to manufacturing scale, you are simply deluding yourselves
>>to support your argument.
>
>
> I never said that.
>
> I was only pointing out that 8VSB isn't an inherently more expensive
> technology (which is Bob's assertion), and the prices of HD receivers support
> my statement. *Why* it isn't inherently more expensive isn't any concern
> to me.
>
to build an 8-VSB receiver that can handle multipath.
The main reason that you do not see the 5th gen prototype technology
from LG that we tested now 18 months ago is that it is too costly to
produce.
The 5th gen chips that are being used in some HDTV sets and PCI cards
are not nearly as good as the prototype.
On the other hand you can probably build 1st or 2nd gen 8-VSB receivers
as cheap as an HD COFDM receiver but we know and LG knows that NO one
will buy them at least not in the quantities that would again get the
price low enough to make a profit let alone match COFDM receivers.
And as I pointed out the price of HD receivers in OZ does not support
your argument.
Bob Miller
mattk
> It would be better to wait and see what COFDM HD receivers cost in France
> for example.
>
How cheap do you expect them to be then?
At the moment in France the Sagem SD MPEG-4 set-top box can be rented from
Canal+ at ¤8 a month (it costs around ¤350) along with a subscription to the
OTA pay TV service.
I don't see why the HD version of this would be any cheaper to start with,
especially considering that HD MPEG-4 satellite receivers seem to start from
¤350.
> Here are two at $18 or $9 each, faulty also just like the 8-VSB receivers
> you will find in open box specials.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ALBA-FREEVIEW-BOXES-X-2_W0QQitemZ5848577629QQcategoryZ96964QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
> And here is one in good working order for $17.19
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Pace-freeview-satellite-reciever-MSS100-1_W0QQitemZ5847833385QQcategoryZ96970QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
I hate to be picky but that is an analogue satellite receiver :-) ...
Bob Miller
Here is another that didn't get a bid at $8.
I could have based my logic on that one.
Bob Miller
David
news:1135535238.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Lets hear from some folks who actually USE COFDM. There are folks in
> North America firmly convinced that 8VSB Is the worst possible system.
> My ATSC gear has worked well for over 2 years now so I have no
> complaints but I would like to hear opinions from PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING
> COFDM. Is it REALLY great? (Bob and Matthew please take a breath).
> Europe and Australia -- What do YOU think?
>
> GG
>
I'll be interested to see how smoothly it rolls out in the newer DTV
countries...
Here's France's DTV website:
http://www.francetelecom.com/en/our_solutions/residential/maligne_tv/index.html
[LOL. . . the google translation for their system ["Ma Ligne" television]
was "Malignant" Television ]
mattk
"David" <da...@home.net> wrote in message
news:POadnXXMot_6NSTe...@comcast.com...
> Here's France's DTV website:
>
> http://www.francetelecom.com/en/our_solutions/residential/maligne_tv/index.html
>
The French OTA DTV system is called 'TNT', a more appropriate website for it
would be: http://www.tnt-gratuite.fr/
David
news:xJWdnRkvbOJ...@giganews.com...
Ah, there you go.
Maligne is satellite tv, I guess.
Thanks Matt.
No "English" button on the website . . . not surprisingly. Can't get
google to translate. :-(
Leonard Caillouet
Does not support my argument? My argument is that while I see a lot of
discussion of the cost of manufacturing, nothing I see leads me to believe
that the costs in the marketplace reflect a difference in the cost to
manufacture the tuners for 8VSB and COFDM. The markets are different,
therefore the demand is different, and the scale of manufacturing and
distribution is different. At least Jeff acknowledged the obvious, Bob.
But you hang onto your arguments even when they don't make any sense at all.
Once again, you are going for a long ball in left field when the batter
struck out already.
Leonard
Bob Miller
not support your argument." was in reply to Jeff's post....
"I never said that.
I was only pointing out that 8VSB isn't an inherently more expensive
technology (which is Bob's assertion), and the prices of HD receivers
support my statement. *Why* it isn't inherently more expensive isn't
any concern to me."
The simple fact that LG can make a COFDM receiver for OZ and make money
while they can't make an 8-VSB receiver for the US with 8-VSB is pretty
damning.
And I did acknowledge the obvious and described in some detail just how
different the markets are. Jeff in saying that HD COFDM receiver prices
being higher in OZ than 8-VSB HD receivers in the US proves his argument
is denying the differences or more likely ignoring them.
Bob Miller
G-squared
> I was only pointing out that 8VSB isn't an inherently more expensive
> technology (which is Bob's assertion), and the prices of HD receivers
> support my statement. *Why* it isn't inherently more expensive isn't
> any concern to me."
>
> The simple fact that LG can make a COFDM receiver for OZ and make money
> while they can't make an 8-VSB receiver for the US with 8-VSB is pretty
> damning.
>
> And I did acknowledge the obvious and described in some detail just how
> different the markets are. Jeff in saying that HD COFDM receiver prices
> being higher in OZ than 8-VSB HD receivers in the US proves his argument
> is denying the differences or more likely ignoring them.
>
> Bob Miller
I don't buy the 'inherently more expensive' argument. It will be
reduced to 1-3 chips and assembled by machine. When they are TRULY mass
produced they will cost about the same as a cheapo DVD player.
Electronically they're no worse and there are no moving parts to
assemble.
GG
mattk
France Telecoms 'Ma Ligne' is TV via DSL I believe.
If you need to translate a site try this one instead:
http://www.tvnt.net/V2/sr/188/index.php
Jeff Rife
> while they can't make an 8-VSB receiver for the US with 8-VSB is pretty
> damning.
Yes, it is. It shows that nobody needs the newer technology 5th generation
chips...older equipment that is already in the fabrication pipeline does
the job just fine.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Sins.jpg