BAd News!
Bob Miller
post by a relatively new comer to AVSForum tells it like it is. How can
you have a decent transition when word of mouth from people like this
keep poisoning the well?
michaelingp
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Garrett Park, MD
Posts: 72
"I think Lunasdude is correct, at least based on my experience. Digital
signals (at least on my Panny plasma) do not degrade as gracefully as
analog. I might see a beautiful picture for a couple of minutes, but
then I get what I would call the "Japanese porn" effect, except that
most folks probably don't know what I mean. What happens is that small
portions of the picture turn into relatively big blurry blocks. This is
extremely distracting, to the point of unwatchable, even if it only
happens rarely. Worse, the sound can get disrupted and delayed, which I
never experienced with analog TV. With analog TV you might see ghosts,
wavy lines, or snow, but, for me at least, they don't really destroy my
enjoyment of the picture.
As a result, the TV watchers in my household (I'm not, actually, one of
them) always prefer the analog signals to digital.
This is my experience, and I'm only 6 miles or so from the transmitters.
Admittedly, I could install a bigger antenna and a rotator, but I just
don't think many people want to go back 30 years to the times when you
had to have a big ugly antenna on the roof to get a good picture.
I do like a good conspiracy theory, and my theory would be that this is
a plot to squeeze some money out of the last few people who are getting
their TV signal for "free" over the air. Once they see what a crappy
picture they get (in between the beautiful pictures they get), they will
have to call up the cable or telephone folks and start shelling out.
On the other hand, why would the TV stations be spending millions to
upgrade? Are they dupes or accomplices? As Machiavelli is said to have
said: Don't look for conspiracy where incompetence will explain all the
facts."
In the meantime DTV in other countries is experiencing a rebirth which I
predict will be greater than the fist birth. OTA DTV is going to kill
cable and satellite IMO. Not in the US for a while though since we are
stuck with a DTV modulation and codec that are turkeys.
Bob Miller
David Efflandt
> The 8-VSB based disastrous transition proceeds in its death spiral. This
> post by a relatively new comer to AVSForum tells it like it is. How can
> you have a decent transition when word of mouth from people like this
> keep poisoning the well?
I guess it depends where you are. Maybe 6 miles from the station, he
is overloaded and needs something to attenuate the signal, instead of more
antenna (like antenna diversification in cars that switch to windshield
antenna if external antenna overloads).
I am 36 miles from Chicago stations and almost all analog stations (except
a couple of UHF) have snow or interference. With just a boosted Silver
Sensor on a second floor shelf, blocked by a 2 story brick office
building, I get excellent digital reception (except CBS 3 on VHF) and
acceptable enough analog for PIP (even VHF except CBS 2). I dropped cable
when it was costing me $50 in 1995, so I have not had decent TV since then
until OTA digital arrived. Even when I had cable it was snowy, so even if
our digital is not the best in the world, it is the best I ever had.
Bob Miller
> In article <bxV8f.1895$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"I think Lunasdude is correct, at least based on my experience. Digital
>>signals (at least on my Panny plasma) do not degrade as gracefully as
>>analog. I might see a beautiful picture for a couple of minutes, but
>>then I get what I would call the "Japanese porn" effect, except that
>>most folks probably don't know what I mean. What happens is that small
>>portions of the picture turn into relatively big blurry blocks. This is
>>extremely distracting, to the point of unwatchable, even if it only
>>happens rarely. Worse, the sound can get disrupted and delayed, which I
>>never experienced with analog TV. With analog TV you might see ghosts,
>>wavy lines, or snow, but, for me at least, they don't really destroy my
>>enjoyment of the picture.
>
>
> tuner.
>
> My first thought: ohmigod, it's the same "digital quality" that the
> cell phone companies (and MP3 player manufacturers) hype. It's like
> Nextel on video.
>
> I'm with the guy who wrote this: I'm in it for the story every bit as
> much as, if not more so than, the picture. So fuzz and snow and whatnot
> never bothered me.
>
> But look around and listen to people, and you'll find people who (a)
> don't read, which means they're not into stories so much, so they (b)
> watch anything--ANYTHING--as long as it's HD, and they rave about the
> picture. They'd choose big time wrestling on HD over a good storyline
> on analog.
>
> But anyway. The fact remains, digital OTA sucks unless you have good
> broadcasters AND a good antenna system. The days of simple antennas on
> the TV are apparently gone.
>
> I don't know or care about the who and the why and the bits and bytes of
> all of this; all I know is, digital OTA sucks rocks.
>
It is just bad enough to guarantee failure. Doesn't have to be that way.
Other countries do not have this problem. They are using versions of
COFDM and countries going digital now will also be using MPEG4.
That means that countries like China, Malaysia, Borneo, Mongolia, the
Ivory Coast and Russia will have far better OTA DTV than the US.
The eye opening event of the new Millennium will be the Chinese Olympics
in 2008.
The worst RF environment in the world, New York City has reception like
this mobile with COFDM and a single 100 Watt transmitter. This in a city
with MEGA (that is a MILLION) WATT DTV stations on the Empire State
Building that you can't receive 8 blocks away.
This is COFDM with a 3 and 12 inch omni antenna at 100 Watts. Light in a
light bulb on a 400 ft building. Compare to Empire State Building at
1200 or so.
And in Washington DC they carried on this week with the digital
transition like there was NO problem with reception. I was at a meeting
with Chairman of the House Subcommittee Barton a few months ago and he
DID NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT.
I warned him that this would blow up in his face but he is only
listening to such as Motorola who shouted me down stating they had
perfect receivers that worked anywhere.
It is our spectrum, yours and mine and it could be receivable mobile and
portable on simple inexpensive receivers and simple omni antennas. It
could deliver TWICE the programming to us free and clear with MPEG4.
But the cable and satellite companies don't want you to have this
possibility. They want FREE OTA TO DIE. The broadcasters want multicast
must carry on cable and they want to be paid for the content they must
send for free OTA. They also do not want new competition OTA so they
have and still will delay the transition as long as possible so that the
spectrum cannot be sold to or even used after sale by new competitors.
You are being screwed and early adopters have been duped into being
allies with these crooks with the HDTV label.
The one saving grace is that foreign countries and especially foreign
broadcasters fought back against the pressure from the US and went with
their own test and rejected 8-VSB. Now their success is beginning to and
will undermine the 8-VSB modulation BS here in the US big time.
Wake up America. You are being duped in DTV, drugs, jobs, immigration
etc. Your pocket is being picked by the supposedly large US corporations
which do not think like US citizens but world citizens. They wave the
flag in your face while they pick your pocket and buy your politicians.
Bob Miller
Richard
the first stage of their conversions (because the FCC permitted this), many
if not most of the reports of poor digital coverage can be attributed to
that one fact. It has nothing to do with the modulation standard. But why
should objective facts get in the way of the bull some people like to
spread.
Now if one person has a significant reception problem with a local station
give them a call. They just might have a suggestion for you that solves your
reception problem.
Richard.
Bob Miller
I stated before in NYC 8-VSB is unreceivable from the heights of the
Empire State Building only nine blocks away while COFDM IS receivable
MOBILE with SIMPLE ANTENNA all over the city.
The difference is that COFDM is operating with a 100 WATT transmitter at
400 feet. In broadcasting it is all about ALTITUDE, ALTITUDE, ALTITUDE.
The higher you are the LESS power you need.
BUT in New York City COFDM at 100 WATTS and ONLY 400 Feet of ALTITUDE
easily beats out 8-VSB with 1200 feet of ALTITUDE operating from the
Empire State Building at up to------1,000,000--- like in ONE MILLION WATTS.
Put it another way 8-VSB doesn't work reception wise in a fixed
position, mobile being impossible anywhere, only nine blocks from a
major power source with a very high location.
COFDM works from a much lower broadcast position, while using 1/1000 th
of the power 8-VSB is using and COFDM works MOBILE. It works with simple
antennas, the simplest and cheapest in fact.
As this video demonstrates.
Richard is the one with the BS. It is NOT the power levels that are the
primary problem with the current disastrous DTV transition in the US. It
IS the modulation we are using.
Bob Miller
Charles Tomaras
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p559f.2066$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Richard wrote:
>> Since many digital stations purchased very low output transmitters during
>> the first stage of their conversions (because the FCC permitted this),
>> many if not most of the reports of poor digital coverage can be
>> attributed to that one fact. It has nothing to do with the modulation
>> standard. But why should objective facts get in the way of the bull some
>> people like to spread.
>>
>> Now if one person has a significant reception problem with a local
>> station give them a call. They just might have a suggestion for you that
>> solves your reception problem.
>>
>> Richard.
> Richard suggest it is just a problem of power levels. That is the BS. As I
> stated before in NYC 8-VSB is unreceivable from the heights of the Empire
> State Building only nine blocks away while COFDM IS receivable MOBILE with
> SIMPLE ANTENNA all over the city.
>
> The difference is that COFDM is operating with a 100 WATT transmitter at
> 400 feet. In broadcasting it is all about ALTITUDE, ALTITUDE, ALTITUDE.
> The higher you are the LESS power you need.
>
> BUT in New York City COFDM at 100 WATTS and ONLY 400 Feet of ALTITUDE
> easily beats out 8-VSB with 1200 feet of ALTITUDE operating from the
> Empire State Building at up to------1,000,000--- like in ONE MILLION
> WATTS.
Bob...what radiating pattern do those NYC transmitters use? Could it be that
being at 1400 feet the radiating pattern doesn't go nearly straight down to
an area 9 blocks away?
Bob Miller
Watt transmitter.
This did not preclude our receiving COFDM right below the building we
were on, behind the building or 7 stories into the building which is a
brick s**thouse if there ever was one. In fact we could receive COFDM
all around the base of the Empire State Building 50 or so blocks away
even with all the cement, ground clutter people and traffic. We could
receive COFDM behind the building all the way down to the tip of
Manhattan even though we were very directional in our broadcast at Midtown.
That is we were directing our signal in a flat oval toward the horizon
of Midtown Manhattan which gave us an ERP of just under 1000 Watts.
The power levels around the base of the Empire State Building are more
likely to be too high not too low. Power isn't the problem, multipath is.
The convoluted attempts to deny that 8-VSB has a problem with multipath
is insane. We tried the BEST 8-VSB receiver ever with the designers
standing with us in the room where we were transmitting COFDM. We had
clear line of sight from our 400 foot location to the Empire State
Building some 50 blocks away. This WAS NOT below the main signal
directed at the horizon. The signal level was very high and yet I could
kill reception by standing off to the side of the antenna, a dual bow
tie from Radio Shack, in a particular location or I could kill reception
by walking in front of the antenna or at least if a couple of us did.
This is simply not true of COFDM nor was it true of COFDM in 2000 in the
test done before Congress where a simple antenna was able to pick up a
1080i broadcast while mobile in the hearing room even though it was
operating at a higher bit rate than 8-VSB was, 19.76 Mbps compared to
19.34 Mbps.
COFDM can be set to a lower bit rate to increase robustness but even at
a higher bit rate than 8-VSB it is still more robust and capable of
mobile reception.
AND even a year after we tested that LG receiver (prototype) we still
cannot get one retail. In fact LG has stopped making any STB for retail
in the US claiming they can't make money here.
While they still make COFDM HDTV receivers and HDTV PVR COFDM receivers
for Australia, a market 1/16th the size of the US market.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> X-No-archive: yes> news:bxV8f.1895$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> The 8-VSB based disastrous transition proceeds in its death spiral.
>
>
>
> When a person reads this, there is no need to read any further.
> This is a bald faced LIE!
>
> The current transition is proceeding swiftly and clearly.
> HDTV sales are increasing and HD transmissions are being received by
> MANY people without any problem whatever.
>
> The only problems we have are in shoddy practices by the network
> and the local station in their handling of the signals.
> It is NOT the fault of 8-VSB.
>
> Your pathetic obsession with this is pretty strange.
> =================================
>
My post was to show what many Americans are finding out when, not
obsessed with patently false information about modulations foisted on
the early adopters of HDTV they just replace their analog TV sets with
digital and find to their horror that it doesn't work as well in their
case as analog.
Such as was the experience of Elmo P. Shagnasty in his post on AVSForum.
Most of the time people like Elmo don't post anything anywhere they just
tell all of their friends what a disaster OTA DTV is.
That is why NO one is buying OTA receivers.
That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
That is why broadcasters are stalling on the transition as much as they
can. Unlike in places like the UK where the price of an OYA program slot
is going thru the roof and content providers are pulling content from
satellite to offer it OTA.
That is why NO one is advertising 8-VSB receivers.
That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
COFDM receivers for Australia.
OTA is basically dead in the US.
HDTV on the other hand is doing well without OTA on cable and satellite
and the sales of HDTV monitors with NO OTA 8-VSB tuners or NTSC tuners
on board are increasing and will increase much further.
OTA was supposed to be the vanguard of HDTV but it has been no help at
all. Could have been if we had the right modulation.
Bob Miller
Phil Ross
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bxV8f.1895$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
phil-new...@ipal.net
| The 8-VSB based disastrous transition proceeds in its death spiral. This
| post by a relatively new comer to AVSForum tells it like it is. How can
| you have a decent transition when word of mouth from people like this
| keep poisoning the well?
|
| michaelingp
| Member
|
| Join Date: Jun 2005
| Location: Garrett Park, MD
| Posts: 72
|
| "I think Lunasdude is correct, at least based on my experience. Digital
| signals (at least on my Panny plasma) do not degrade as gracefully as
| analog. I might see a beautiful picture for a couple of minutes, but
| then I get what I would call the "Japanese porn" effect, except that
| most folks probably don't know what I mean. What happens is that small
| portions of the picture turn into relatively big blurry blocks. This is
| extremely distracting, to the point of unwatchable, even if it only
| happens rarely. Worse, the sound can get disrupted and delayed, which I
| never experienced with analog TV. With analog TV you might see ghosts,
| wavy lines, or snow, but, for me at least, they don't really destroy my
| enjoyment of the picture.
By its very nature, digital does not degrade gracefully. Digital is
very non-linear, so don't expect it to do so. The same argument can
be made about the performance of FM over AM for audio. As the signal
level goes down, FM degrades faster than AM. The objective is to
have your signal level at the point where the degrades don't happen.
At that signal level, analog would already have begun to degrade in
its graceful way quite a bit.
| As a result, the TV watchers in my household (I'm not, actually, one of
| them) always prefer the analog signals to digital.
|
| This is my experience, and I'm only 6 miles or so from the transmitters.
| Admittedly, I could install a bigger antenna and a rotator, but I just
| don't think many people want to go back 30 years to the times when you
| had to have a big ugly antenna on the roof to get a good picture.
You apparently do have some kind of bad antenna, perhaps one with a
negative gain.
Personally, I consider the Channel Master 8-bay bow-tie UHF antenna to
be a pretty antenna. I'll probably end up with 3 or 4 of them in fixed
directions.
| I do like a good conspiracy theory, and my theory would be that this is
| a plot to squeeze some money out of the last few people who are getting
| their TV signal for "free" over the air. Once they see what a crappy
| picture they get (in between the beautiful pictures they get), they will
| have to call up the cable or telephone folks and start shelling out.
You forgot the satellite folks :-)
| On the other hand, why would the TV stations be spending millions to
| upgrade? Are they dupes or accomplices? As Machiavelli is said to have
| said: Don't look for conspiracy where incompetence will explain all the
| facts."
It's working quite fine for a lot of people.
| In the meantime DTV in other countries is experiencing a rebirth which I
| predict will be greater than the fist birth. OTA DTV is going to kill
| cable and satellite IMO. Not in the US for a while though since we are
| stuck with a DTV modulation and codec that are turkeys.
8-VSB actually works better for conditions that are more common in the
USA than in other countries. COFDM has a higher peak to average signal
level ratio, meaning that you have a small dynamic range to work with.
8-VSB lets transmitters get more effective power out, which is needed
more in the USA due to larger numbers of people at greater distances
from transmitters. In most other countries, TV started as lots of small
transmitters distributed around, because that's the way the government
broadcasters did things. In the USA, it went more the direction of big
tall towers and high power transmitters. 8-VSB works better in most of
these situations, so it is the better choice overall for the majority.
Your case may be one of the exceptions.
You need a decent $25 antenna and a decent run of coax.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
T...@backhome.org
has either cable or Direct/Dish TV.
I am on cable. My HDTV looks great to all of us here unless the source
mucks it up, like using analog cameras for fill and all that jazz.
As to 480 on the digital channels my cable company carries (LA market) KABC
and KTLA (WB) are always better than my old NTSC tv when they are doing
digital but not HDTV. CBS and NBC are worse when not doing HDTV than my old
NTSC set.
Something in all that tells me there are lots of issues with source.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| It is just bad enough to guarantee failure. Doesn't have to be that way.
| Other countries do not have this problem. They are using versions of
| COFDM and countries going digital now will also be using MPEG4.
ATSC does appear to be headed towards MPEG4.
| That means that countries like China, Malaysia, Borneo, Mongolia, the
| Ivory Coast and Russia will have far better OTA DTV than the US.
Actually not. Their OTA TV will be principly limited to urban areas
and the areas served by repeaters and translators.
| The worst RF environment in the world, New York City has reception like
| this mobile with COFDM and a single 100 Watt transmitter. This in a city
| with MEGA (that is a MILLION) WATT DTV stations on the Empire State
| Building that you can't receive 8 blocks away.
Can't get analog their, either.
| This is COFDM with a 3 and 12 inch omni antenna at 100 Watts. Light in a
| light bulb on a 400 ft building. Compare to Empire State Building at
| 1200 or so.
Show me how that COFDM looks like over by Scranton PA.
When I lived in the NYC suburbs (NJ specificially) in the early 1980's,
I watched good analog pictures from Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, so the
opposite would be true the other way around, if you try.
| And in Washington DC they carried on this week with the digital
| transition like there was NO problem with reception. I was at a meeting
| with Chairman of the House Subcommittee Barton a few months ago and he
| DID NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT.
Look in the mirror.
| I warned him that this would blow up in his face but he is only
| listening to such as Motorola who shouted me down stating they had
| perfect receivers that worked anywhere.
And you have tested these receivers and found they fail in half
the locations?
| It is our spectrum, yours and mine and it could be receivable mobile and
| portable on simple inexpensive receivers and simple omni antennas. It
| could deliver TWICE the programming to us free and clear with MPEG4.
The needs for fixed reception and mobile reception work differently.
Trying to find one method that service both will be a compromise that
ends up serving neither very well.
| But the cable and satellite companies don't want you to have this
| possibility. They want FREE OTA TO DIE. The broadcasters want multicast
| must carry on cable and they want to be paid for the content they must
| send for free OTA. They also do not want new competition OTA so they
| have and still will delay the transition as long as possible so that the
| spectrum cannot be sold to or even used after sale by new competitors.
It's going to happen in 2009, period. Maybe April at the latest.
| You are being screwed and early adopters have been duped into being
| allies with these crooks with the HDTV label.
It's DTV.
| The one saving grace is that foreign countries and especially foreign
| broadcasters fought back against the pressure from the US and went with
| their own test and rejected 8-VSB. Now their success is beginning to and
| will undermine the 8-VSB modulation BS here in the US big time.
8-VSB is the better method for the type of usage intended, which is fixed
to homes, not mobile. Other services specifically for mobile will be using
what works best for that.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| I am 36 miles from Chicago stations and almost all analog stations (except
| a couple of UHF) have snow or interference. With just a boosted Silver
| Sensor on a second floor shelf, blocked by a 2 story brick office
| building, I get excellent digital reception (except CBS 3 on VHF) and
| acceptable enough analog for PIP (even VHF except CBS 2). I dropped cable
| when it was costing me $50 in 1995, so I have not had decent TV since then
| until OTA digital arrived. Even when I had cable it was snowy, so even if
| our digital is not the best in the world, it is the best I ever had.
You might like to know that WBBM has negotiated for channel 11 at the end
of the transition. WTTW has elected to go with channel 47. WLS will stay
on channel 7 while WMAQ will be on 29 and WGN will be on 19. So, no more
low band VHF for Chicago in 2009.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| My post was to show what many Americans are finding out when, not
| obsessed with patently false information about modulations foisted on
| the early adopters of HDTV they just replace their analog TV sets with
| digital and find to their horror that it doesn't work as well in their
| case as analog.
|
| Such as was the experience of Elmo P. Shagnasty in his post on AVSForum.
| Most of the time people like Elmo don't post anything anywhere they just
| tell all of their friends what a disaster OTA DTV is.
|
| That is why NO one is buying OTA receivers.
No, the reason is manufacturers are not making very many at decent prices
(yet).
| That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
The mandate is to make the receivers become available.
| That is why broadcasters are stalling on the transition as much as they
| can. Unlike in places like the UK where the price of an OYA program slot
| is going thru the roof and content providers are pulling content from
| satellite to offer it OTA.
It would have been better if the receivers had been mandated earlier,
like around 2002 for large screen, 2003 for medium screen, and 2004 for
all the rest.
| That is why NO one is advertising 8-VSB receivers.
There are lots of things that don't get advertised for many reasons.
| That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
| COFDM receivers for Australia.
|
| OTA is basically dead in the US.
Seems to be alive and kicking.
Tam/WB2TT
>
> BUT in New York City COFDM at 100 WATTS and ONLY 400 Feet of ALTITUDE
> easily beats out 8-VSB with 1200 feet of ALTITUDE operating from the
> Empire State Building at up to------1,000,000--- like in ONE MILLION
> WATTS.
>
ABC, CH45, 182KW
CBS, CH56, 349KW
NBC, CH28, 178KW
WOR, CH38, 143KW
WPIX,CH33, 265KW
PBS, CH61, 219KW
I don't think that NBC and PBS are up to steam yet. Where the other stations
are stable, these two vary from great to nil. One listing I saw had NBC at
19KW. I am 27 miles South from the Empire State Building . I have a $25
Radio Shack corner reflector antenna at 20 feet. There is a hill between me
and NYC. Meanwhile, I get a perfect picture from WLIW-DT, Long Island, 40
miles away. They run 92KW to an antenna at 450 feet. Note that all of these
stations are running about 1/10 the power of an average UHF station. .
The reason for 8-VSB was backwards compatibility, specifically:
1) You can supposedly use the same transmitter. (Not at the same time,
unless you do something really weird. I think the idea was to use somebody
else's recycled trtansmitter)
2) You can put a digital station on a channel adjacent to an existing analog
channel in the same service area. For example, WLIW-DT on 22 is adjacent to
WLIW analog (2735KW) on channel 21.
3) you can put an 8-VSB station ON THE SAME channel as an analog station not
too far away.
Once the analog stations have gone away, presumably the UHF DT stations will
be able to increase their power to the 2+ MW level.
As for not being able to receive a station directly below the antenna, that
is nothing new. I once visited a station in Ohio with a ~1200 foot tower.
There was a secondary antenna at about 100 feet to feed a signal to people
close by. That was on VHF.
Tam
Bob Miller
people. Bathism worked fine in Iraq for a lot of people who are still
p***ed off that they are no longer in power.
The TV stations spent millions to upgrade for one reason. If they didn't
upgrade to digital they would lose their must carry rights on cable.
The money broadcasters pay for upgrading and for their electric
broadcast bill are the "dues they must pay for must carry" as one major
broadcaster told me. Though publicly broadcasters will say they treasure
their OTA viewers many would turn off their transmitters in a second to
save money if they thought they could maintain must carry rights.
>
> | In the meantime DTV in other countries is experiencing a rebirth which I
> | predict will be greater than the fist birth. OTA DTV is going to kill
> | cable and satellite IMO. Not in the US for a while though since we are
> | stuck with a DTV modulation and codec that are turkeys.
>
> 8-VSB actually works better for conditions that are more common in the
> USA than in other countries. COFDM has a higher peak to average signal
> level ratio, meaning that you have a small dynamic range to work with.
> 8-VSB lets transmitters get more effective power out, which is needed
> more in the USA due to larger numbers of people at greater distances
> from transmitters. In most other countries, TV started as lots of small
> transmitters distributed around, because that's the way the government
> broadcasters did things. In the USA, it went more the direction of big
> tall towers and high power transmitters. 8-VSB works better in most of
> these situations, so it is the better choice overall for the majority.
>
> Your case may be one of the exceptions.
>
Another exception may be Australia where distances are even more a
factor than in the US. They said after extensive testing that the
difference between DVB-T COFDM and 8-VSB power wise found in lab testing
was insignificant to non-existent in the real world.
They chose DVB-T COFDM as did Russia and as will China where distances
are major factors as well. The power issue was a canard thrown up by the
8-VSB crowd. A non issue.
>
>
You need a decent $25 antenna and a decent run of coax.
>
He needs good advice. Here is some. Tell as many of your friends as
possible the trouble you are having with reception of DTV. Warn them not
to buy anything until the FCC and or Congress sets receiver standards
and they can buy a receiver that meets those standards.
That will keep them out of the DTV market for a long time.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:20:49 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | It is just bad enough to guarantee failure. Doesn't have to be that way.
> | Other countries do not have this problem. They are using versions of
> | COFDM and countries going digital now will also be using MPEG4.
>
> ATSC does appear to be headed towards MPEG4.
>
all current receivers sold since 1998. That was one of the main reasons
given for not allowing COFDM that all receivers sold before 2000 would
be made obsolete, all 2000 of them.
The reality is that when the US decided to change the codec for the
"required" free to air SD or HD program they might as well change the
modulation as well as the MAIN argument for not changing is that
receivers will be made obsolete and changing the codec does just that.
If you change then it would be insane not to take advantage of the
improvements in modulation that have occurred since 1997. Even 8-VSB
could be upgraded.
All modulations should be considered at that time.
SO saying that ATSC is heading for MPEG4 is insane. Any change would
open the door to the retesting of ALL known modulations including DVB-T,
ISDB-T and DMB-T from China.
>
> | That means that countries like China, Malaysia, Borneo, Mongolia, the
> | Ivory Coast and Russia will have far better OTA DTV than the US.
>
> Actually not. Their OTA TV will be principly limited to urban areas
> and the areas served by repeaters and translators.
>
So you have the inside track on the long term DTV future of all these
countries? They will never deploy a substantial DTV coverage?
And what if they don't for what ever reason possibly economic? They
still chose COFDM.
>
> | The worst RF environment in the world, New York City has reception like
> | this mobile with COFDM and a single 100 Watt transmitter. This in a city
> | with MEGA (that is a MILLION) WATT DTV stations on the Empire State
> | Building that you can't receive 8 blocks away.
>
> Can't get analog their, either.
>
That has nothing to do with it but is also untrue in the most part. Mark
Schubin could/can receive all analog stations in his apartment watchable
with a simple antenna on the top of his TV. This was not and is not true
of 8-VSB even today. The only instance in which he could match NTSC
analog with 8-VSB was with an LG prototype a year ago just before LG
quit building any 8-VSB receivers.
>
> | This is COFDM with a 3 and 12 inch omni antenna at 100 Watts. Light in a
> | light bulb on a 400 ft building. Compare to Empire State Building at
> | 1200 or so.
>
> Show me how that COFDM looks like over by Scranton PA.
>
> When I lived in the NYC suburbs (NJ specificially) in the early 1980's,
> I watched good analog pictures from Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, so the
> opposite would be true the other way around, if you try.
>
Obviously I can't show you that because COFDM is not allowed in the US.
It would be as good or better than 8-VSB as the Australian test, the
Sinclair test in Baltimore and the MSTV test showed when Sinclair
retested the seven sites where COFDM had failed and where 8-VSB had
worked at six sites.
Upon retest with a proper receiver, COFDM worked in ALL seven sites
including the one site where 8-VSB had failed.
The opposite of watching in Scranton what you could receive in New York
is not obvious at all. Lots of variables. Being able to watch DTV over
the radio horizon is not necessarily a good thing. The over powered US
analog broadcast system causes interference that is unnecessary if
multipath was under control.
Having the digital broadcast system duplicate that flawed over powered
and outdated system is wrong. By lowering power and using on channel
repeaters you could better sculpt a stations coverage and you could
modernize our system and allow the reuse of a lot of spectrum that now
goes to waste.
>
> | And in Washington DC they carried on this week with the digital
> | transition like there was NO problem with reception. I was at a meeting
> | with Chairman of the House Subcommittee Barton a few months ago and he
> | DID NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT.
>
> Look in the mirror.
>
Not true I am one of the few who actively tested and test the latest
8-VSB receivers. I do so in the hope that we will find one we can use.
My ears are open unlike those of Congress, the FCC and most
broadcasters. Any of them doing any testing of receivers except Sinclair?
>
> | I warned him that this would blow up in his face but he is only
> | listening to such as Motorola who shouted me down stating they had
> | perfect receivers that worked anywhere.
>
> And you have tested these receivers and found they fail in half
> the locations?
>
For a total political disaster it does not have to be half. 10 to 30%
would be a disaster for anyone whose name is attached. And why have 10
to 30% failure when there is no need for it?
>
> | It is our spectrum, yours and mine and it could be receivable mobile and
> | portable on simple inexpensive receivers and simple omni antennas. It
> | could deliver TWICE the programming to us free and clear with MPEG4.
>
> The needs for fixed reception and mobile reception work differently.
> Trying to find one method that service both will be a compromise that
> ends up serving neither very well.
>
The only difference is that being able to receive mobile is only a
testament to the robustness of the signal. NOTHING else. If you can
receive mobile you also have the best system for fixed reception.
I would love for you to explain a situation where a modulation that
works mobile would not work as well as another modulation when a fixed
site is tested. This should be good.
I had a standing offer to test COFDM against 8-VSB where I said that
using the same power and broadcast antenna with both COFDM and 8-VSB I
would let the 8-VSB folks pick any site where they could receive 8-VSB
and I would drive around that site receiving COFDM mobile.
>
> | But the cable and satellite companies don't want you to have this
> | possibility. They want FREE OTA TO DIE. The broadcasters want multicast
> | must carry on cable and they want to be paid for the content they must
> | send for free OTA. They also do not want new competition OTA so they
> | have and still will delay the transition as long as possible so that the
> | spectrum cannot be sold to or even used after sale by new competitors.
>
> It's going to happen in 2009, period. Maybe April at the latest.
>
There is no PERIOD in Washington. Broadcasters have been denied
multicast must carry twice and still they fight on. Multicast must carry
will only die after Congress gives it to broadcasters and then the cable
guys take it to the Supreme Court. Then ALL must carry will die.
The digital transition will be over when the last analog transmitter is
turned off not before. The rumor mill already says that both 2009 dates
are fictitious. That as the date set approaches broadcasters will go to
the public with a new set of delay tactics chief among which will be the
lack of receiver standards.
Congress will jump like a frog to get out of that boiling pot.
Broadcasters will not bring the temp up slowly. They will as one feign
indignation that receivers standards are not set or met.
The delay could go on for a long time. After all 2006 was set in stone
years ago.
>
> | You are being screwed and early adopters have been duped into being
> | allies with these crooks with the HDTV label.
>
> It's DTV.
>
Yes it is DTV but many early adopters still believe it is HDTV. The HDTV
label is what was pasted all over this transition and most early
adopters bought it.
>
> | The one saving grace is that foreign countries and especially foreign
> | broadcasters fought back against the pressure from the US and went with
> | their own test and rejected 8-VSB. Now their success is beginning to and
> | will undermine the 8-VSB modulation BS here in the US big time.
>
> 8-VSB is the better method for the type of usage intended, which is fixed
> to homes, not mobile. Other services specifically for mobile will be using
> what works best for that.
>
You will see services that compete directly with 8-VSB on channels above
51 and they will work better using COFDM than 8-VSB does for both fixed
and mobile.
Also simply not true and NTSC was both portable, mobile and fixed. It
did not work well at any of them but that is no reason to give up mobile
and portable. That is another issue that broadcasters will feign
surprise at at the last moment.
"Where is mobile reception? My God we can't let this transition happen.
We were promised mobile reception by the 8-VSB crowd way back in 2001."
broadcasters will say. "They said they would have it within six months.
That 8-VSB will work mobile as well as COFDM. That was after they said
they had it in 1999."
Broadcasters will also say "Won't have it in 2009 either. And the
broadcasters can use that tool at the last minute too. Hey US public the
government wants to take your analog away and do a digital that doesn't
work fixed, mobile or portable. they haven't set receiver standards and
they have ignored the fact that the rest of the world has a working DTV
system that works mobile and portable and fixed."
They are good at this. They are broadcasters and they can tell the story
well when it suits them.
Expect it about November of 2008. A major campaign. And after the delay
we will have switched to or allowed COFDM of some sort with a deadline
of 2012. By which time, because it will be in their interest, all
broadcasters will have switched to COFDM and will welcome the end of analog.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:03:20 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | My post was to show what many Americans are finding out when, not
> | obsessed with patently false information about modulations foisted on
> | the early adopters of HDTV they just replace their analog TV sets with
> | digital and find to their horror that it doesn't work as well in their
> | case as analog.
> |
> | Such as was the experience of Elmo P. Shagnasty in his post on AVSForum.
> | Most of the time people like Elmo don't post anything anywhere they just
> | tell all of their friends what a disaster OTA DTV is.
> |
> | That is why NO one is buying OTA receivers.
>
> No, the reason is manufacturers are not making very many at decent prices
> (yet).
>
advocate of HDTV, AVSForum, does a very good job of spreading the bad
news about OTA 8-VSB. They do this while trying to tout it. You only
need one post like Elmo's to counter 10 filled with BS.
>
> | That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
>
> The mandate is to make the receivers become available.
>
Exactly since no one is buying them, no one is advertising them, no one
wants to make them and the price of the few available is too high the
FCC felt compelled to force us to buy them. What do you expect from a
Republican administration?
>
> | That is why broadcasters are stalling on the transition as much as they
> | can. Unlike in places like the UK where the price of an OYA program slot
> | is going thru the roof and content providers are pulling content from
> | satellite to offer it OTA.
>
> It would have been better if the receivers had been mandated earlier,
> like around 2002 for large screen, 2003 for medium screen, and 2004 for
> all the rest.
>
The FCC was deluded into thinking that 8-VSB was going to be fixed. So
far it has not been fixed. If they had known how bad 8-VSB was going to
be right from the beginning they would have mandated the s**t earlier.
>
> | That is why NO one is advertising 8-VSB receivers.
>
> There are lots of things that don't get advertised for many reasons.
>
And one of the MANY reasons that no one is advertising 8-VSB receivers
is that they don't beelive in 8-VSB.
>
> | That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
> | COFDM receivers for Australia.
> |
> | OTA is basically dead in the US.
>
> Seems to be alive and kicking.
>
Depends on what you call alive. More like life support. They are selling
7 times as many receivers per population in Australia as in the US and
they call their transition dead. By their take ours has been buried for
a number of years.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> "Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:p559f.2066$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>BUT in New York City COFDM at 100 WATTS and ONLY 400 Feet of ALTITUDE
>>easily beats out 8-VSB with 1200 feet of ALTITUDE operating from the
>>Empire State Building at up to------1,000,000--- like in ONE MILLION
>>WATTS.
>>
>
> I don't know where you get this from. In NYC you have:
>
> ABC, CH45, 182KW
> CBS, CH56, 349KW
> NBC, CH28, 178KW
> WOR, CH38, 143KW
> WPIX,CH33, 265KW
> PBS, CH61, 219KW
OK instead of 1/1000th the power of 8-VSB we were operating COFDM mobile
successfully at
ABC, CH45, 182KW 1/182 nd
CBS, CH56, 349KW 1/349 th
NBC, CH28, 178KW 1/178 th
WOR, CH38, 143KW 1/143 rd
WPIX,CH33, 265KW 1/265 th
PBS, CH61, 219KW 1/219 th
And to be truthful I sort of knew that there was no station operating at
a MEGAWATT in NYC. I just was praying that someone would set me up like
this.
>
> I don't think that NBC and PBS are up to steam yet. Where the other stations
> are stable, these two vary from great to nil. One listing I saw had NBC at
> 19KW. I am 27 miles South from the Empire State Building . I have a $25
> Radio Shack corner reflector antenna at 20 feet. There is a hill between me
> and NYC. Meanwhile, I get a perfect picture from WLIW-DT, Long Island, 40
> miles away. They run 92KW to an antenna at 450 feet. Note that all of these
> stations are running about 1/10 the power of an average UHF station. .
>
Are you saying 1/10 the power of the average analog station? Hey that is
the way digital works.
> The reason for 8-VSB was backwards compatibility, specifically:
>
> 1) You can supposedly use the same transmitter. (Not at the same time,
> unless you do something really weird. I think the idea was to use somebody
> else's recycled trtansmitter)
> 2) You can put a digital station on a channel adjacent to an existing analog
> channel in the same service area. For example, WLIW-DT on 22 is adjacent to
> WLIW analog (2735KW) on channel 21.
> 3) you can put an 8-VSB station ON THE SAME channel as an analog station not
> too far away.
>
Don't think so. Same distances between Cochannels apply I believe.
>
>
Once the analog stations have gone away, presumably the UHF DT
stations will
> be able to increase their power to the 2+ MW level.
>
> As for not being able to receive a station directly below the antenna, that
> is nothing new. I once visited a station in Ohio with a ~1200 foot tower.
> There was a secondary antenna at about 100 feet to feed a signal to people
> close by. That was on VHF.
>
Nothing new for NTSC or ATSC but with COFDM we have no problem below the
broadcast tower since multipath is our friend not an enemy.
Bob Miller
> Tam
>
>
Jim Miller
promo $$ at stake selling satellite. any store selling hdtv that i've gone
into pushes satellite like crazy rather than ota. since a good many of the
tvs have a atsc tuner in them already there's no $$ to be made in ota
compared to pushing satellite.
the cable providers must not be spiffing them since i've never seen them
push cable either.
jtm
Elmo P. Shagnasty
In article <bZidndr9oK4...@comcast.com>,
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:s179f.3358$AS6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> > My post was to show what many Americans are finding out when, not obsessed
> > with patently false information about modulations foisted on the early
> > adopters of HDTV they just replace their analog TV sets with digital and
> > find to their horror that it doesn't work as well in their case as analog.
> >
> =========================
> Which is a LIE!
> If they had good analog reception, it is common for the digital to be vastly
> better.
> THAT is the real fact.
> ===========================
> >
> > That is why NO one is buying OTA receivers.
> ============================
> They are selling out fast at the locations that carry them.
> ============================
>
> > That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
> ============================
> No.................that is not why.
> They merely feel that a set should be able to receive TV signals.
> I prefer a higher quality, separate box myself.
> ============================
>
> > That is why broadcasters are stalling on the transition as much as they
> > can.
> ==========================
> That is simply due to their inertia and stupidity.
> =========================
> >
> > That is why NO one is advertising 8-VSB receivers.
> ===========================
> I see ads for them all the time in Seattle.
> ============================
>
> > That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
> > COFDM receivers for Australia.
> >
> > OTA is basically dead in the US.
> >
> =============================
> then what is your complaint?
> People who have cable and sat can get HDTV that is not OTA.
> Others, like myself, can enjoy P E R F E C T HD OTA!
> =============================
>
> > HDTV on the other hand is doing well without OTA on cable and satellite
> > and the sales of HDTV monitors with NO OTA 8-VSB tuners or NTSC tuners on
> > board are increasing and will increase much further.
> >
> =============================
> So what is your complaint?
> Mine is that the stores are not making clear to people how
> BEAUTIFUL OTA is an that they can usually get it. AND it is free!
> ==============================
>
> > OTA was supposed to be the vanguard of HDTV but it has been no help at
> > all. Could have been if we had the right modulation.
> >
> =============================
> that would have made NO difference.
> NONE of the real-case factors would have changed by a different
> modulation. Cable and Sat would still have been pushed because of
> the higher income produced.
>
> Your case is dead.
> ===============================
cjdayton...@cox.net
> That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
> COFDM receivers for Australia.
>
> OTA is basically dead in the US.
>
> Bob Miller
More lies by Bob Miller. LG just announced that they will be making the
latest generation Directv boxes next year, the H20, also made by another
manufacturer. It will have the latest 5th generation chip in it. OTA is
NOT dead in the US, Bob. You are a liar.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
numeric
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:dk31g...@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:41:27 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
> | "I think Lunasdude is correct, at least based on my experience. Digital
> | signals (at least on my Panny plasma) do not degrade as gracefully as
> | analog. I might see a beautiful picture for a couple of minutes, but
> | then I get what I would call the "Japanese porn" effect, except that
> | most folks probably don't know what I mean. What happens is that small
> | portions of the picture turn into relatively big blurry blocks. This is
> | extremely distracting, to the point of unwatchable, even if it only
> | happens rarely. Worse, the sound can get disrupted and delayed, which I
> | never experienced with analog TV. With analog TV you might see ghosts,
> | wavy lines, or snow, but, for me at least, they don't really destroy my
> | enjoyment of the picture.
>
> By its very nature, digital does not degrade gracefully. Digital is
> very non-linear, so don't expect it to do so. The same argument can
> be made about the performance of FM over AM for audio. As the signal
> level goes down, FM degrades faster than AM. The objective is to
> have your signal level at the point where the degrades don't happen.
> At that signal level, analog would already have begun to degrade in
> its graceful way quite a bit.
>
negative before. No matter how good a digital system might be, statically
there will always be someone located at the threshold boundary. The OP does
not shed any light on his reception problem; yet focuses on the threshold
issue; really a bogus issue. Should a digital transmission be designed that
"degrades gracefully", the system would be susceptible to noise and would be
quickly DOA.
Tam/WB2TT
it is kind of late to be doing anything now (I already bought a set with an
ATSC tuner). As for the Sinclair tests, they are completely useless, though
possibly true. You are supposed to do the system test after you have proved
your point in a controlled environment. As for the guy in NY, he might get
better reception if he disconnects whatever is hooked to the F connector,
and insert a partially straightened paper clip in there.
Somebody else pointed this out, and the big thing against COFDM appears to
be range. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe you have to more
than double the transmitter power for COFDM to get the same range as 8VSB if
there is no serious multipath. Either the Harris, or the FCC site equated
this to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year extra on the electric bill;
this is a big deal in the boondocks with few viewers and high power. The
examples that were pointed out on this group had nothing to do with range or
power, since presumably neither system was noise limited.
As for co-channel, I don't remember the rules, but I keep seeing DT stations
popping up on the same VHF channel as some analog station 75 - 100 miles
away. Also, I don't know that COFDM would be any worse. The adjacent channel
thing may be something that went away with modern receivers. If they can do
it on cable, why not OTA, as long as the two stations run equal power.
Tam
Joe Moore
Since many OTA signals vary in strength and direction, the nature of
degradation is a legitimate issue. Instead of saying that someone is
located at the threshold boundary, I would say that for most people,
some station is located at the threshold boundary. And watching that
station can be annoying as hell. It is much easier to adapt to and
ignore a snowy picture than it is to watch a frozen or blocky picture.
And periods of silence lasting up to a half second are downright
disconcerting to someone trying to follow a conversation.
joemooreaterolsdotcom
David
news:BLudnUz1Btw...@comcast.com...
> X-No-archive: yes> news:bxV8f.1895$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> The 8-VSB based disastrous transition proceeds in its death spiral.
>
>
> When a person reads this, there is no need to read any further.
> This is a bald faced LIE!
>
> The current transition is proceeding swiftly and clearly.
> HDTV sales are increasing and HD transmissions are being received by
> MANY people without any problem whatever.
>
> The only problems we have are in shoddy practices by the network
> and the local station in their handling of the signals.
> It is NOT the fault of 8-VSB.
>
> Your pathetic obsession with this is pretty strange.
> =================================
Very true.
Add to this being ejected from various forums for uncontrollable lying and
self-promotion of his (COFDM datacasting) business interests..
"Bob Miller, the president of a failed company in NYC called Viacel, is
our resident clown and snake oil salesman. He serves a valuable
purpose in this newsgroup by reliably coming to an incorrect conclusion
from any news item or piece of data. He is so reliably wrong on all
matters that whenever he says anything, you can be confident that the
exact opposite is true."
David
> I first experienced digital TV back in July when I bought my HDTV w/OTA
> tuner.
> My first thought: ohmigod, it's the same "digital quality" that the
> cell phone companies (and MP3 player manufacturers) hype. It's like
> Nextel on video.
You're kidding??! What did the problem turn out to be? Where do you live?
> I'm with the guy who wrote this: I'm in it for the story every bit as
> much as, if not more so than, the picture. So fuzz and snow and whatnot
> never bothered me.
> But look around and listen to people, and you'll find people who (a)
> don't read, which means they're not into stories so much, so they (b)
> watch anything--ANYTHING--as long as it's HD, and they rave about the
> picture. They'd choose big time wrestling on HD over a good storyline
> on analog.
> But anyway. The fact remains, digital OTA sucks unless you have good
> broadcasters AND a good antenna system.
We've always had terrible NTSC TV here (Northern NJ, behind two mountain
ranges), but HDTV over-the-air has been a godsend. Rock-solid reception
since December of 1999, using a RCA DTC-100. (The first HD box available,
still going strong.)
A darned good antenna only costs $20, the Channel Master 3021.
http://www.warrenelectronics.com/antennas/4221.htm
The days of simple antennas on
> the TV are apparently gone.
They were never much good anyway.... especially NTSC UHF ones were
ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.
> I don't know or care about the who and the why and the bits and bytes of
> all of this; all I know is, digital OTA sucks rocks.
There's something seriously wrong with your broadcaster/location or setup.
Bob Miller
> why the no archive flag, Richard?
>
> In article <bZidndr9oK4...@comcast.com>,
> "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:s179f.3358$AS6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>My post was to show what many Americans are finding out when, not obsessed
>>>with patently false information about modulations foisted on the early
>>>adopters of HDTV they just replace their analog TV sets with digital and
>>>find to their horror that it doesn't work as well in their case as analog.
>>>
>>
>>=========================
>>Which is a LIE!
>>If they had good analog reception, it is common for the digital to be vastly
>>better.
>>THAT is the real fact.
>>===========================
multipath challenged environment like New York City for instance. NTSC
works much better than ATSC here.
The fact that in some locations NTSC is not as good as ATSC does not
change the reality that it is worse in many locations.
>>
>>>That is why NO one is buying OTA receivers.
>>
>>============================
>>They are selling out fast at the locations that carry them.
>>============================
>>
Could you give me an example other than the close out at Radio shack?
>>
>>>That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
>>
>>============================
>>No.................that is not why.
>>They merely feel that a set should be able to receive TV signals.
>>I prefer a higher quality, separate box myself.
>>============================
>>
If the FCC had wanted a mandate for that reason they would have done it
much sooner. They conceived of the mandate only after a number of years
in which the sale of OTA receivers was almost non existent.
>>
>>>That is why broadcasters are stalling on the transition as much as they
>>>can.
>>
>>==========================
>>That is simply due to their inertia and stupidity.
>>=========================
Is that the best you can come up with?
>>
>>>That is why NO one is advertising 8-VSB receivers.
>>
>>===========================
>>I see ads for them all the time in Seattle.
>>============================
>>
Nation wide Mark Schubin checks for ads for OTA receivers and finds none
to one most weeks. Can you forward the ads you see in Seattle? I will
inform him.
>>
>>>That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
>>>COFDM receivers for Australia.
>>>
>>>OTA is basically dead in the US.
>>>
>>
>>=============================
>>then what is your complaint?
>>People who have cable and sat can get HDTV that is not OTA.
>>Others, like myself, can enjoy P E R F E C T HD OTA!
>>=============================
>>
My complaint is that the spectrum we own and which is designated for
free OTA TV/DTV is being wasted by the broadcasters and the FCC when it
could offer a competitive service to cable and satellite. Broadcasters
are more interested in must carry and the revenue stream it brings from
cable subscribers. They are little interested in the OTA spectrum they
received for free.
>>
>>>HDTV on the other hand is doing well without OTA on cable and satellite
>>>and the sales of HDTV monitors with NO OTA 8-VSB tuners or NTSC tuners on
>>>board are increasing and will increase much further.
>>>
>>
>>=============================
>>So what is your complaint?
>>Mine is that the stores are not making clear to people how
>>BEAUTIFUL OTA is an that they can usually get it. AND it is free!
>>==============================
>>
Usually is not good enough when there is a modulation that would offer
ubiquitous reception both mobile and fixed.
>>
>>>OTA was supposed to be the vanguard of HDTV but it has been no help at
>>>all. Could have been if we had the right modulation.
>>>
>>
>>=============================
>>that would have made NO difference.
>>NONE of the real-case factors would have changed by a different
>>modulation. Cable and Sat would still have been pushed because of
>>the higher income produced.
>>
Many ventures were in the offing, one actually started, USDTV, but many
more would already be in existence if COFDM had been allowed in the US.
COFDM has caused a rebirth of OTA broadcasting in the countries that use
it. It is only in the US where OTA is still dead.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> ..
>
> In article <MYSdnfomc8i...@comcast.com>,
> "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>No one is buying them because of bad word of mouth. Even the biggest
>>>advocate of HDTV, AVSForum, does a very good job
>>
>>AVSForum probably connects with less than 1/100 of a percent of the
>>potential DTV/HDTV customers.
>>It is not a factor.
>>Neither are you.
>
>
I agree about myself though I have been accused of single handedly
killing the OTA transition by some.
AVSForum is very influential IMO. Each poster there is a mentor for many
others.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
interference with co-channels in other markets.
The power issue is a canard. Australia where they have very big distance
issues initially chose 8-VSB but later decided to test COFDM.
After the test they switched to COFDM and said that though laboratory
test showed a power advantage for COFDM they could not find it in the
field test. It was either non existent or inconsequential.
I offered a challenge to anyone that if they were to broadcast 8-VSB
that I would broadcast COFDM at the same power and using the same
broadcast antenna and would drive around any location they picked where
they could receive 8-VSB and receive COFDM mobile.
There were no takers. We had a transmitter on the CN tower in Toronto
that could be switched from 8-VSB to COFDM with the push of a button.
The response we got was from CEA members who harrassed the Univerity
partner we were working with into turning off the test and firing the
professor we were working with or lose funding from there corporate largess.
But they did not show up with their receivers to prove me wrong.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
beginning. In most countries with COFDM simple antennas are and will be
the norm. A one inch antenna on a cell phone will bring in COFDM DTV.
This will be true here in the US also with the ventures of Qualcomm and
Crown Castle coming on line. There will be others. All on channels above 51.
In this video of COFDM reception mobile in New York City we are using 3
inch and 12 inch monopole omni antennas.
Bob Miller
David
Well, one has to ask, given your obvious history of lying, deception and
cheating:
what type of playback source for your "video" were you using?
numeric
"Joe Moore" <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:nthbm11chn9caiffd...@4ax.com...
> "numeric" <num...@att.net> wrote:
> >I have heard the abrupt threshold advantage of digital reception used as
a
> >negative before. No matter how good a digital system might be,
statically
> >there will always be someone located at the threshold boundary. The OP
does
> >not shed any light on his reception problem; yet focuses on the threshold
> >issue; really a bogus issue. Should a digital transmission be designed
that
> >"degrades gracefully", the system would be susceptible to noise and would
be
> >quickly DOA.
>
> Since many OTA signals vary in strength and direction, the nature of
> degradation is a legitimate issue. Instead of saying that someone is
> located at the threshold boundary, I would say that for most people,
> some station is located at the threshold boundary.
True, just ask any "DX er" (distant reception); its not uncommon to find a
station at the boundry. However, viewers located within the broadcasters
target area should be able to get noise free reception. The problem could be
low signal level. Some broadcasters are using directional antennas and
viewers located in their null will not get easy reception. Also some
stations are running very low power. I think some are running below what
they tell the FCC. For example, there is one station that I cannot receive.
The FCC 41dbu
service contour plot does indicate that I am near the boundary, yet I am
unable to get
reception. In-fact not even with a communications receiver and a high gain
antenna at 40 feet, can a meaning full signal be detected; yet their
analog picture is noise free and ghost free.
Even in a multipath environment reception is possible; but depends on the
severity of the multipath. My new HDTV set with a built-in digital tuner
provides superb reception in a very severe multipath environment. Channels
28 digital and 29 analog, just one example, are transmitted from the same
site and carry the same program. Channel 29 is severely distorted due to
multipath, yet channel 28 digital is crystal clear. Reception is solid
without breakup. My older digital tuners however, will not provide this
level of performance. I have two new digital tuners, the Samsung built-in
tuner and the BBti AirStar-HD5000 PCI HDTV card with the LG 5th generation.
Both provide solid reception. Don't know if the Samsung uses the LG 5th
generation chip, but the Samsung receiver does perform somewhat better then
the LG tuner. This multipath environment is achieved by orientating my
directional antenna away from the transmitter location to deliberately
enhance the multipath reflections. Since there broadcasters from two
opposite directions, this is also a normal condition. I can leave the
antenna pointed toward the more distant city and receive the closer city off
axis. An omni directional antenna would probably work better, but I prefer
the high gain directional antenna for digital DX reception.
> And watching that
> station can be annoying as hell. It is much easier to adapt to and
> ignore a snowy picture than it is to watch a frozen or blocky picture.
> And periods of silence lasting up to a half second are downright
> disconcerting to someone trying to follow a conversation.
The same is true for satellite reception; on heavy rain or dark clouds the
satellite signal drops out. Annoying but does not warrant changing the
digital transmission method to one that "fails gracefully". In-fact OTA
reception is far more solid then satellite reception. Hurricane Wilma with
winds over 120 Mph (in my area) clearly demonstrated the difference. The
satellite antenna was blown far off alignment, yet my OTA digital reception
remained solid; even though the OTA antenna was also blown off alignment.
David
> Wake up America. You are being duped in DTV, drugs, jobs, immigration etc.
> Your pocket is being picked by the supposedly large US corporations which
> do not think like US citizens but world citizens. They wave the flag in
> your face while they pick your pocket and buy your politicians.
Matt Mac Donagh
rest of my stations that are picked up via an OTA antenna in the attic look
great, all the time.
I dont know what the forum posters problems are, perhaps he's using rabbit
ears or a piece of wire or something. Being 6 miles from the towers would
put him in a great place to pick up OTA HD signals. I wish I lived that
close to the transmitters....
Matt
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bxV8f.1895$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The 8-VSB based disastrous transition proceeds in its death spiral. This
> post by a relatively new comer to AVSForum tells it like it is. How can
> you have a decent transition when word of mouth from people like this keep
> poisoning the well?
>
> michaelingp
> Member
>
> Join Date: Jun 2005
> Location: Garrett Park, MD
> Posts: 72
>
> "I think Lunasdude is correct, at least based on my experience. Digital
> signals (at least on my Panny plasma) do not degrade as gracefully as
> analog. I might see a beautiful picture for a couple of minutes, but then
> I get what I would call the "Japanese porn" effect, except that most folks
> probably don't know what I mean. What happens is that small portions of
> the picture turn into relatively big blurry blocks. This is extremely
> distracting, to the point of unwatchable, even if it only happens rarely.
> Worse, the sound can get disrupted and delayed, which I never experienced
> with analog TV. With analog TV you might see ghosts, wavy lines, or snow,
> but, for me at least, they don't really destroy my enjoyment of the
> picture.
>
> As a result, the TV watchers in my household (I'm not, actually, one of
> them) always prefer the analog signals to digital.
>
> This is my experience, and I'm only 6 miles or so from the transmitters.
> Admittedly, I could install a bigger antenna and a rotator, but I just
> don't think many people want to go back 30 years to the times when you had
> to have a big ugly antenna on the roof to get a good picture.
>
> I do like a good conspiracy theory, and my theory would be that this is a
> plot to squeeze some money out of the last few people who are getting
> their TV signal for "free" over the air. Once they see what a crappy
> picture they get (in between the beautiful pictures they get), they will
> have to call up the cable or telephone folks and start shelling out.
>
> On the other hand, why would the TV stations be spending millions to
> upgrade? Are they dupes or accomplices? As Machiavelli is said to have
> said: Don't look for conspiracy where incompetence will explain all the
> facts."
>
> In the meantime DTV in other countries is experiencing a rebirth which I
> predict will be greater than the fist birth. OTA DTV is going to kill
> cable and satellite IMO. Not in the US for a while though since we are
> stuck with a DTV modulation and codec that are turkeys.
>
> Bob Miller
Matt Mac Donagh
up locals from Sacramento. They all looked AWESOME! Clearly its not this
good all over the US but it was great there and is simple fine here in
Colorado.
cjdayton...@cox.net
LOL!
Bob Miller
> Hmm... When I lived in Rocklin Ca I had an antenna on the roof that picked
> up locals from Sacramento. They all looked AWESOME! Clearly its not this
> good all over the US but it was great there and is simple fine here in
> Colorado.
>
works for everyone no matter where they are or what speed they are going
and the other one works for people in parts of Colorado and California
with fixed receivers but not very well for people in big cities or
anyone mobile or portable which one should we use?
That is the question. There is NO reason to disenfranchise anyone. There
is no reason to give up mobile reception. There are DTV modulations that
would work for everyone with simple antennas. And they work mobile.
Surely the need to pay off a political debt contracted behind close
doors in 1993 is not a good enough reason for the disaster we are going
through with our DTV transition in 2005 is it?
Bob Miller
David
news:elmop-DA6DD8....@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <0smdnXq8Ps2EUvve...@comcast.com>,
> "Matt Mac Donagh" <game...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Being 6 miles from the towers would
>> put him in a great place to pick up OTA HD signals.
>
>
> And I still can't count on watching a digital OTA program with my wife
> moving around the house.
>
> Most of the time most of the channels are mostly good. But that leaves
> quite a bit of the time, surprisingly enough, when they're just bad
> enough that I give up.
>
> Remember, digital is on/off. The signal is there, or it isn't. It's
> like being pregnant.
>
> I have a Terk TV5 (I think it is) which has done a far, far better job
> than any of the other, lesser priced antennae I've tried.
>
> But truly, I see no way out of this other than strapping an antenna and
> rotor onto the chimney.
I was sure you had some obvious reasons why DTV "doesn't work" for you ...
And just for starters, you're actually trying to use a _TERK_ antenna??
:-/
David
> In article <yI2dnSNEXdE...@comcast.com>,
> "David" <da...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> > But truly, I see no way out of this other than strapping an antenna and
>> > rotor onto the chimney.
>>
>> I was sure you had some obvious reasons why DTV "doesn't work" for you
>> ...
>> And just for starters, you're actually trying to use a _TERK_ antenna??
>> :-/
>
>
> It was the third or fourth antenna I tried, and it worked far better
> than anything that came before it.
>
> That's not to say it's perfect, but it seems to me that the only thing
> that'll do better is a high up, rotating antenna.
>
> Gee, thanks, Congress.
Terk antennas are regarded to be the worst.
Try a Silver Sensor. If that doesn't work , try the aforementioned CM 3021.
It probably doesn't have to be high up, and it's only $20...
And read the foreign discussion groups. Since 1999, I've seen _thousands_
of complaints about people losing their picture when the furnace runs, a
refrigerator door is opened, etc etc.
U.S. Congress made a really good decision [for once] with our 8VSB DTV
broadcasts.
David
>The power issue was a canard thrown up by the 8-VSB crowd. A non issue.
Another incredibly stupid "Psycho Bob" lie...
Matt
is that whatever they use in Sac CA and Denver CO seem to work fine for me.
So in my case, digital OTA doesnt suck rocks...
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5oE9f.3419$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Matt
they do. In my case I use a Terk TV38 in the attic here in Parker, Co. It
pulls in just as well as any other "better because the internet says so"
antenna does.
When I lived in California the Terk TV38 that was mounted to the roof of the
house pulled stations in from San Francisco which was 125 miles from my
house. All that without an amplifier. I know, curvature of the planet, blah,
blah, blah... All I know is that I was able to watch CBS and UPN in DTV from
SF and Ilived 20 miles east of Sac. So there, Terk antennas do and can work!
Matt
general direction? If I were you I'd put the antenna on teh roof. Since your
that close it wont have to be towering above your place. Heack, at 6 miles
you could probably get away with thje thing lying on the roof but pointing
in the right direction...
Or if you can stuff it into the attic that should work too.
I love the "Terk is bad" buzz. I have no idea as to where that comes from.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-DA6DD8....@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <0smdnXq8Ps2EUvve...@comcast.com>,
> "Matt Mac Donagh" <game...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Being 6 miles from the towers would
>> put him in a great place to pick up OTA HD signals.
>
> well, *I'm* between six and ten miles from the transmitters.
>
> And I still can't count on watching a digital OTA program with my wife
> moving around the house.
>
> Most of the time most of the channels are mostly good. But that leaves
> quite a bit of the time, surprisingly enough, when they're just bad
> enough that I give up.
>
> Remember, digital is on/off. The signal is there, or it isn't. It's
> like being pregnant.
>
> I have a Terk TV5 (I think it is) which has done a far, far better job
> than any of the other, lesser priced antennae I've tried.
>
phil-new...@ipal.net
| phil-new...@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:20:49 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|> | It is just bad enough to guarantee failure. Doesn't have to be that way.
|> | Other countries do not have this problem. They are using versions of
|> | COFDM and countries going digital now will also be using MPEG4.
|>
|> ATSC does appear to be headed towards MPEG4.
|>
| The only way that a broadcaster can use MPEG4 with ATSC is to OBSOLETE
| all current receivers sold since 1998. That was one of the main reasons
| given for not allowing COFDM that all receivers sold before 2000 would
| be made obsolete, all 2000 of them.
This all depends on whether the broadcasters have a choice on a case
by case basis. I had suggested around here a while back that maybe we
could give broadcasters a choice of 8-VSB vs. COFDM on a case by case
basis (e.g. one broadcaster could switch even between programs). That
might have been bad to make such choices so much, but I bet that if they
do decide to go with MPEG4, it will be in a way that allows broadcasters
to choose on a program by program basis ... e.g. it won't be mandated,
just allowed (but they might mandate support in new TVs).
| The reality is that when the US decided to change the codec for the
| "required" free to air SD or HD program they might as well change the
| modulation as well as the MAIN argument for not changing is that
| receivers will be made obsolete and changing the codec does just that.
You have not yet convinced me that COFDM will be better for the majority
of households using OTA TV in the USA.
| If you change then it would be insane not to take advantage of the
| improvements in modulation that have occurred since 1997. Even 8-VSB
| could be upgraded.
If the modulation were changed, I'd go with a form of QAM that uses a
group coded constellation confined in a circular parameter over a
triangular lattice. For example a circle with a radius of the square
root of 73 confines 265 points, sufficient for a group coding of 256.
| All modulations should be considered at that time.
Only if there is a cause for modulation change. I believe a change to
MPEG4 would be much less costly than a change to COFDM. MPEG4 might
well be a software upgrade.
| SO saying that ATSC is heading for MPEG4 is insane. Any change would
| open the door to the retesting of ALL known modulations including DVB-T,
| ISDB-T and DMB-T from China.
Not really. It would just be a new compression available for the same
transport format.
|> | That means that countries like China, Malaysia, Borneo, Mongolia, the
|> | Ivory Coast and Russia will have far better OTA DTV than the US.
|>
|> Actually not. Their OTA TV will be principly limited to urban areas
|> and the areas served by repeaters and translators.
|>
| So you have the inside track on the long term DTV future of all these
| countries? They will never deploy a substantial DTV coverage?
|
| And what if they don't for what ever reason possibly economic? They
| still chose COFDM.
I think you didn't understand what I said. For the kind of coverage done
in the USA with one big transmitter, it's normal for many other countries
to deploy multitudes of smaller transmitters.
|>
|> | The worst RF environment in the world, New York City has reception like
|> | this mobile with COFDM and a single 100 Watt transmitter. This in a city
|> | with MEGA (that is a MILLION) WATT DTV stations on the Empire State
|> | Building that you can't receive 8 blocks away.
|>
|> Can't get analog their, either.
|>
| That has nothing to do with it but is also untrue in the most part. Mark
| Schubin could/can receive all analog stations in his apartment watchable
| with a simple antenna on the top of his TV. This was not and is not true
| of 8-VSB even today. The only instance in which he could match NTSC
| analog with 8-VSB was with an LG prototype a year ago just before LG
| quit building any 8-VSB receivers.
Just how good was this analog picture in the first place?
Based on what I have read in a few places so far, there are plenty of
people with snowy analog pictures that became crystal clear with ATSC
and 8-VSB on the same antenna. That's rather good considering the power
reduction in DTV.
| Obviously I can't show you that because COFDM is not allowed in the US.
| It would be as good or better than 8-VSB as the Australian test, the
| Sinclair test in Baltimore and the MSTV test showed when Sinclair
| retested the seven sites where COFDM had failed and where 8-VSB had
| worked at six sites.
I would not have any qualms about running a test of COFDM vs. 8-VSB on
one of the ham bands (just running test patterns and other non-commercial
stuff for content). 1 watt of power or less can easily reach 500 km or
more from a weather balloon at 30 km high. We could try 8-VSB, 16-VSB,
64-QAM, 256-QAM, COFDM, and for a base reference, analog VSB. Let's
cut the power to 10 milliwatts just for grins.
| Upon retest with a proper receiver, COFDM worked in ALL seven sites
| including the one site where 8-VSB had failed.
| The opposite of watching in Scranton what you could receive in New York
| is not obvious at all. Lots of variables. Being able to watch DTV over
| the radio horizon is not necessarily a good thing. The over powered US
| analog broadcast system causes interference that is unnecessary if
| multipath was under control.
I think to propose COFDM you must also propose a complete change in
the structure of how TV is transmitted here. That can means a whole
lot of expense in many markets with very small populations to support
it. That really won't fly unless the government builds it (and that
isn't going to happen in the USA).
| Having the digital broadcast system duplicate that flawed over powered
| and outdated system is wrong. By lowering power and using on channel
| repeaters you could better sculpt a stations coverage and you could
| modernize our system and allow the reuse of a lot of spectrum that now
| goes to waste.
Who is going to pay for this system?
| Not true I am one of the few who actively tested and test the latest
| 8-VSB receivers. I do so in the hope that we will find one we can use.
| My ears are open unlike those of Congress, the FCC and most
| broadcasters. Any of them doing any testing of receivers except Sinclair?
The nature of OTA TV (big sticks, big power, wide reach) isn't going
to change here, especially considering we have found a modulation that
actually works with it.
|> | It is our spectrum, yours and mine and it could be receivable mobile and
|> | portable on simple inexpensive receivers and simple omni antennas. It
|> | could deliver TWICE the programming to us free and clear with MPEG4.
|>
|> The needs for fixed reception and mobile reception work differently.
|> Trying to find one method that service both will be a compromise that
|> ends up serving neither very well.
|>
| The only difference is that being able to receive mobile is only a
| testament to the robustness of the signal. NOTHING else. If you can
| receive mobile you also have the best system for fixed reception.
No. It is a test of one aspect of robustness in favor of not having
another aspect of robustness that you seem to not be interested in.
| I would love for you to explain a situation where a modulation that
| works mobile would not work as well as another modulation when a fixed
| site is tested. This should be good.
COFDM has a lower average-to-peak signal strength than 8-VSB. That needs
to be higher to have a greater information density in a give power spectrum.
| I had a standing offer to test COFDM against 8-VSB where I said that
| using the same power and broadcast antenna with both COFDM and 8-VSB I
| would let the 8-VSB folks pick any site where they could receive 8-VSB
| and I would drive around that site receiving COFDM mobile.
Same average power, or same peak power?
Presumably in locations on the order of 125 miles from the transmitter,
where analog requires a big antenna on a tall mast, DTV can be expected
to have a similar requirement. If a smaller antenna works in DTV, then
there's more power than needed. Bring the power level down (which is
being done with DTV as compared to analog) to where the same antenna
works for the vast majority, then you have it about right. Do this for
both 8-VSB and COFDM. Which will have the lowest power level?
| There is no PERIOD in Washington. Broadcasters have been denied
| multicast must carry twice and still they fight on. Multicast must carry
| will only die after Congress gives it to broadcasters and then the cable
| guys take it to the Supreme Court. Then ALL must carry will die.
Remember what cable TV used to be long ago. It was supposed to be a
means for those who didn't want the big antenna on the tall stick (in
some places, tall enough to look over a mountain) to be able to get
TV reception at all. Must carry came along to prevent cable serving
this purpose from playing games with the broadcasters.
I'll favor an exception to must carry on the basis of "all or nothing".
That is a cable system can elect to _not_ be a "OTA provider" by not
carrying any OTA at all. But if they choose to be an "OTA provider",
then I think it is only right that they do it completely.
Their argument that they don't have the bandwidth is a bunch of BS.
They have the bandwidth and they know damned well they have the bandwidth.
They just want to take the bandwidth for their own profiteering.
| The digital transition will be over when the last analog transmitter is
| turned off not before. The rumor mill already says that both 2009 dates
| are fictitious. That as the date set approaches broadcasters will go to
| the public with a new set of delay tactics chief among which will be the
| lack of receiver standards.
There are new and growing voices to speed up the transition and grab
the spectrum for public service and auctioning off. I'm sure some will
have some delay tactics pulled, but overall it appears to be headed to
happening.
| Congress will jump like a frog to get out of that boiling pot.
| Broadcasters will not bring the temp up slowly. They will as one feign
| indignation that receivers standards are not set or met.
What standards are you talking about? Your perpetual quest to change
it all to COFDM so you can watch TV while driving?
| You will see services that compete directly with 8-VSB on channels above
| 51 and they will work better using COFDM than 8-VSB does for both fixed
| and mobile.
These services will be using a completely different structure for their
transmitters ... lots of smaller ones. That will indeed be interesting,
but I will also just wait and see how well they cover rural areas like
the entire states of West Virginia or Kansas.
| Also simply not true and NTSC was both portable, mobile and fixed. It
| did not work well at any of them but that is no reason to give up mobile
| and portable. That is another issue that broadcasters will feign
| surprise at at the last moment.
NTSC has always been more lousy at mobile that at fixed. A portable TV
in downtown Wheeling WV gets all 3 locals on analog very lousy. And you
can see the antenna towers from the right places. People do not expect
it to work, so they have solved it one way or another, such as using cable,
or a good directional antenna, or listen to the radio instead. DTV is
not trying to cover these cases where analog didn't work well. Maybe it
should have. But they weren't trying to change the whole model of TV.
Perhaps if the likes of Qualcomm prove that a good deployment can really
work, have 100% coverage, and be cheaper, maybe the next big transition
in the future will be to that style of transmission. Then COFDM can shine.
But that isn't the direction the regular stations are doing today.
| "Where is mobile reception? My God we can't let this transition happen.
| We were promised mobile reception by the 8-VSB crowd way back in 2001."
| broadcasters will say. "They said they would have it within six months.
| That 8-VSB will work mobile as well as COFDM. That was after they said
| they had it in 1999."
I never heard such a promise. The promise I heard was better pictures,
both in the form of cleaner pictures and higher definition capability.
| Broadcasters will also say "Won't have it in 2009 either. And the
| broadcasters can use that tool at the last minute too. Hey US public the
| government wants to take your analog away and do a digital that doesn't
| work fixed, mobile or portable. they haven't set receiver standards and
| they have ignored the fact that the rest of the world has a working DTV
| system that works mobile and portable and fixed."
It works fixed. Channel differences change the dynamics somewhat, but
I've read where the FCC is granting power changes to some stations when
they discover their DTV signal isn't getting to at least 99% of their
previous analog coverage. Obviously, stations moving from VHF to UHF
(as so many are doing) will have issues like this, especially in the
fringe areas (UHF doesn't bend as easily).
| They are good at this. They are broadcasters and they can tell the story
| well when it suits them.
| Expect it about November of 2008. A major campaign. And after the delay
| we will have switched to or allowed COFDM of some sort with a deadline
| of 2012. By which time, because it will be in their interest, all
| broadcasters will have switched to COFDM and will welcome the end of analog.
All the very same cries about "they want to break your analog TV" will
then be applied as "they want to break the digital TV you just bought"
with regard to the switch to COFDM, if anyone ever gets serious with it.
How many 8-VSB TVs and STBs that don't also include COFDM have been sold
now?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil-new...@ipal.net
| That is the question. There is NO reason to disenfranchise anyone. There
| is no reason to give up mobile reception. There are DTV modulations that
| would work for everyone with simple antennas. And they work mobile.
| Surely the need to pay off a political debt contracted behind close
| doors in 1993 is not a good enough reason for the disaster we are going
| through with our DTV transition in 2005 is it?
Mobile doesn't work with analog. I know, because I have tried. And
that was while driving in direct line of sight of the former twin towers.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Once the analog stations have gone away, presumably the UHF DT stations will
| be able to increase their power to the 2+ MW level.
I don't think they will be going that high. There is no need to go any
higher than covering 100% of what was previously covered, though it might
be nice to push the edge out a bit as long as it doesn't push back in on
the next station on the same channel. It would be nice to be able to get
something on every UHF channel. I'll definitely be checking channel 37 to
see who shows up there :-)
phil-new...@ipal.net
| As for co-channel, I don't remember the rules, but I keep seeing DT stations
| popping up on the same VHF channel as some analog station 75 - 100 miles
| away. Also, I don't know that COFDM would be any worse. The adjacent channel
| thing may be something that went away with modern receivers. If they can do
| it on cable, why not OTA, as long as the two stations run equal power.
Adjacent channel is quite easy now days even with rather different power
levels, even on UHF where at one time separation in-market was supposed
to be 6, 8 or more channels for various reasons (including I.F. cross-mod).
My grandfather's very early 1950's cable TV system had just 2 channels
(KDKA on channel 2 and WSAZ on channel 3). Adjacency was not a problem
even back, even then with his big tube-type pole amplifiers.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| If they had good analog reception, it is common for the digital to be vastly
| better.
| THAT is the real fact.
True, it is.
One issue that could come up is the fact that many people have been
watching LOUSY analog pictures. With digital they may get nothing.
Depending on what is causing these lousy pictures, either 8-VSB may
show up where COFDM would fail (low signal level), or COFDM may show
up where 8-VSB would fail (multipath distortion). While digital will
surely fix up a slightly bad picture, it could be seen as a total
failure by those who were at least hoping to see their terribly bad
picture become a slightly bad picture.
Yes, we'll hear joke about DTV being 1's and 0's ... today it's a 1
and tomorrow it's a 0.
|> That is why NO one is buying OTA receivers.
| ============================
| They are selling out fast at the locations that carry them.
| ============================
Or the models can't be found. I'll wait to get what I want, which
is not made in digital form, yet.
|> That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
| ============================
| No.................that is not why.
| They merely feel that a set should be able to receive TV signals.
| I prefer a higher quality, separate box myself.
| ============================
Not unlike the UHF mandate (though there are certainly some big
differences, too). The idea is making sure buyers have the ability
to receive future TV.
|> That is why broadcasters are stalling on the transition as much as they
|> can.
| ==========================
| That is simply due to their inertia and stupidity.
| =========================
Which seems to be proportion to the square of the exponent of the number
of shares of stock issued.
|> That is why LG doesn't make OTA 8-VSB receivers for the US while making
|> COFDM receivers for Australia.
|>
|> OTA is basically dead in the US.
|>
| =============================
| then what is your complaint?
| People who have cable and sat can get HDTV that is not OTA.
| Others, like myself, can enjoy P E R F E C T HD OTA!
| =============================
If OTA dies, then the likes of Qualcomm and Sinclair can buy up the
spectrum under auction, and run more nationwide mobile services with
COFDM for Bob.
|> HDTV on the other hand is doing well without OTA on cable and satellite
|> and the sales of HDTV monitors with NO OTA 8-VSB tuners or NTSC tuners on
|> board are increasing and will increase much further.
|>
| =============================
| So what is your complaint?
| Mine is that the stores are not making clear to people how
| BEAUTIFUL OTA is an that they can usually get it. AND it is free!
| ==============================
Ah, the group even less clued-in than the broadcasters: sales people.
Jeff Rife
> Like I said, I don't care about the technical aspects of it all. I
> simply want OTA television that works.
Well, in all cases (even in the UK, where COFDM is used), that means a
roof-mounted antenna. It was true for analog, and even though the C/N
ratio for perfect reception of digital is much lower than that for
"acceptable" analog reception, you still need to get enough signal, and
the average house wall blocks far too much.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Pickles/Adoration.gif
Jeff Rife
> "Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net>
>
> >The power issue was a canard thrown up by the 8-VSB crowd. A non issue.
>
> Another incredibly stupid "Psycho Bob" lie...
Correct, because if it wasn't an issue, then there would have been at least
one COFDM test that duplicates the coverage of analog (or, today, 8VSB
digital) in the US, and all sorts of bragging.
But, since a test like this would show just how obscenely much power COFDM
would take to duplicate coverage, it has never been done.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLife.gif
Bob Miller
> In article <yI2dnSNEXdE...@comcast.com>,
> "David" <da...@home.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>rotor onto the chimney.
>>
>> I was sure you had some obvious reasons why DTV "doesn't work" for you ...
>>And just for starters, you're actually trying to use a _TERK_ antenna??
>>:-/
>
>
>
> It was the third or fourth antenna I tried, and it worked far better
> than anything that came before it.
>
> That's not to say it's perfect, but it seems to me that the only thing
> that'll do better is a high up, rotating antenna.
>
> Gee, thanks, Congress.
>
those who install rooftop rotorized antennas when they see DTV being
received on cell phone antennas and 3 inch antennas on laptops courtesy
of COFDM broadcast.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> In article <hu2dnaxAqab...@comcast.com>,> Really?
>
> My experience showed a few that were worse than the Terk.
>
>
>
>
>>U.S. Congress made a really good decision [for once] with our 8VSB DTV
>>broadcasts.
>
>
> simply want OTA television that works.
>
> forward compared to what we have with analog. I don't think it's right
> to dump analog at this point.
>
> Fortunately, I vote and I know how to write letters.
>
And as we get past the early adopter stage where it seems people will
accept any BS info or receiver there will be a lot more like you that
start to question the insane political choice of 8-VSB modulation in the US.
Bob Miller
phil-new...@ipal.net
| the reason no one at the retail level sells OTA is that they have a lot of
| promo $$ at stake selling satellite. any store selling hdtv that i've gone
| into pushes satellite like crazy rather than ota. since a good many of the
| tvs have a atsc tuner in them already there's no $$ to be made in ota
| compared to pushing satellite.
|
| the cable providers must not be spiffing them since i've never seen them
| push cable either.
Satellite regularly uses independent resellers, such as stores. Even
some telephone companies have partnered with satellite providers (but
surely to further keep consumers away from any cable system since those
guys are doing voice, too).
phil-new...@ipal.net
|> | That is why the FCC felt compelled to MANDATE 8-VSB receivers.
|>
|> The mandate is to make the receivers become available.
|>
| Exactly since no one is buying them, no one is advertising them, no one
| wants to make them and the price of the few available is too high the
| FCC felt compelled to force us to buy them. What do you expect from a
| Republican administration?
I tend to expect a Republican administration to be very hands-off.
Of course lots of people are not buying STBs, or electing to go with
monitors instead of TVs, because their source is cable or satellite.
They are not in the OTA market right now, and may never be for reasons
that they get what they want now.
As soon as the mandate gets down to the size of TVs affordable by the
"average joe" who cannot afford a big screen TV, most of whom cannot
even afford cable or satellite, then we will begin to see the difference
in how a mandate works. With big screen TVs, it was hoped the ATSC/8VSB
part would be a small proportion and this can help test it in a lot of
locations. With medium screen TVs, the dynamics change, and the reason
for the mandate changes as well.
There is no point in selling analog OTA receive capability after the
cutoff date. And where it is is sold now, it is doomed to be obsolete
in a few years, so it is time to sell digital OTA tuners, or don't
have a tuner at all. But as you get into smaller and smaller screens,
you get a higher and higher proportion of the market receiving OTA.
| The FCC was deluded into thinking that 8-VSB was going to be fixed. So
| far it has not been fixed. If they had known how bad 8-VSB was going to
| be right from the beginning they would have mandated the s**t earlier.
The manufacturers are just mad because they didn't get to have control.
| And one of the MANY reasons that no one is advertising 8-VSB receivers
| is that they don't beelive in 8-VSB.
They know that the market doesn't understand what 8-VSB is, yet.
The bulk of OTA is to medium and smaller TVs with integrated tuners.
That's not much of a market for separate STBs, though much of it will
have to do so to avoid having to replace a whole TV. But most of the
new TV purchases will will the digital tuner once they understand what
is happening.
| Depends on what you call alive. More like life support. They are selling
| 7 times as many receivers per population in Australia as in the US and
| they call their transition dead. By their take ours has been buried for
| a number of years.
They'd sell 7 times as many here if they would actually make them
available for sale as integrated tuners in TVs of _all_ sizes and
types. I bet it would be well more than 7 times, too.
Bob Miller
the UK.
There are 7 million who have purchased ISDB-T COFDM receivers in Japan
in the first 18 months and 98% are integrated HDTV sets.
There are 700 thousand DVB-T receivers sold in Australia where there are
only 4 million households. And Australia's problem is that they mandated
HDTV, something that was not done in the US. Now they are considering
allowing SD multicasting to stimulate their transition which is already
7 times bigger than ours.
In France they started broadcasting DVB-T this year and they will sell
NOT mandate over 2 million the first year. IN a few months they will
start OTA HDTV.
Italy and Germany ditto.
And you found thousands of people with problems? I can find millions who
have purchased multiple COFDM receivers and that is before they start
their DVB-H broadcasting which will see DVB COFDM in the billions of
receivers. That is most if not all cellular phones, laptops etc.
ALL major manufacturers of laptops will include DVB-T/H reception
capability on their motherboards starting with the next cycle.
As Australia said after they tested COFDM and 8-VSB and as they DUMPED
8-VSB in favor of COFDM. (paraphrased) The main difference between COFDM
and 8-VSB is that 8-VSB has a laboratory, theoretical power advantage
that we cannot find in the real world, the field. If it exist is is
insignificant. As to impulse noise 8-VSB also has a theoretical
advantage but that can be overcome with more power and better receivers.
8-VSB on the other hand has a major disadvantage in handling multipath
both static and dynamic which cannot be overcome with more power. Ahd
there is little hope that solutions to this disadvantage, especially for
mobile and portable applications, can be solved in the near term if ever.
They then switched to COFDM as did Taiwan. Argentina dropped 8-VSB.
Brazil rejected it twice. South Korean broadcasters fought 8-VSB for 8
years before caving because of the allowance of COFDM for mobile reception.
8-VSB was a political decision and a bad one for the US.
Bob Miller
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Add to this being ejected from various forums for uncontrollable lying and
| self-promotion of his (COFDM datacasting) business interests..
If he believes that 8-VSB means the death of regular OTA, *and* if his
business interest is in COFDM datacasting and other transmissions to
subscription based mobile receivers, they maybe he should just be quiet
and let OTA meet the death he thinks is imminent, so more spectrum will
be available for his purposes.
Bob Miller
stagnant DTV OTA transition in the US.
Bob Miller
phil-new...@ipal.net
| I have heard the abrupt threshold advantage of digital reception used as a
| negative before. No matter how good a digital system might be, statically
| there will always be someone located at the threshold boundary. The OP does
| not shed any light on his reception problem; yet focuses on the threshold
| issue; really a bogus issue. Should a digital transmission be designed that
| "degrades gracefully", the system would be susceptible to noise and would be
| quickly DOA.
The very nature of what digital is, is that it must degrade abruptly.
If video were transmitted UNcompressed, it might be possible to ignore
bit errors and let the small little artifacts happen. But with MPEG
compression, and for a few other reasons, uncorrected bit errors can
have drastic effects.
We don't accept "degrade gracefully" on data transmitted over the
internet. We'll get used to it on TV, too (OTA, cable, satellite,
or internet).
Bob Miller
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:31:39 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | phil-new...@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:20:49 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> |>
> |> | It is just bad enough to guarantee failure. Doesn't have to be that way.
> |> | Other countries do not have this problem. They are using versions of
> |> | COFDM and countries going digital now will also be using MPEG4.
> |>
> |> ATSC does appear to be headed towards MPEG4.
> |>
> | The only way that a broadcaster can use MPEG4 with ATSC is to OBSOLETE
> | all current receivers sold since 1998. That was one of the main reasons
> | given for not allowing COFDM that all receivers sold before 2000 would
> | be made obsolete, all 2000 of them.
>
> This all depends on whether the broadcasters have a choice on a case
> by case basis. I had suggested around here a while back that maybe we
> could give broadcasters a choice of 8-VSB vs. COFDM on a case by case
> basis (e.g. one broadcaster could switch even between programs). That
> might have been bad to make such choices so much, but I bet that if they
> do decide to go with MPEG4, it will be in a way that allows broadcasters
> to choose on a program by program basis ... e.g. it won't be mandated,
> just allowed (but they might mandate support in new TVs).
>
political suicide. And since it is GOING to happen anyway for all but
the required SD broadcast, that is all broadcasters will multicast, our
representatives in DC are going to have a lot of very unhappy voters
which will lead to hearings in which we will finally get the truth
because broadcasters will be using their bully pulpit, broadcast TV, to
ram home the message. Expect this to happen as soon as broadcasters get
Congress to give them must carry of multicast and before the Supreme
Court rules ALL must carry laws unconstitutional. Especially with the
strict contitutionalist being sent to that court.
>
> | The reality is that when the US decided to change the codec for the
> | "required" free to air SD or HD program they might as well change the
> | modulation as well as the MAIN argument for not changing is that
> | receivers will be made obsolete and changing the codec does just that.
>
> You have not yet convinced me that COFDM will be better for the majority
> of households using OTA TV in the USA.
>
I don't have to convince you. This will happen. It is happening. I am in
contact with manufacturers of 8-VSB STBs and they all will incorporate
MPEG4 capability except for the Congressional purchase of converter
boxes. Those boxes will be el cheapo and obsolete when purchased.
>
> | If you change then it would be insane not to take advantage of the
> | improvements in modulation that have occurred since 1997. Even 8-VSB
> | could be upgraded.
>
> If the modulation were changed, I'd go with a form of QAM that uses a
> group coded constellation confined in a circular parameter over a
> triangular lattice. For example a circle with a radius of the square
> root of 73 confines 265 points, sufficient for a group coding of 256.
>
>
> | All modulations should be considered at that time.
>
> Only if there is a cause for modulation change. I believe a change to
> MPEG4 would be much less costly than a change to COFDM. MPEG4 might
> well be a software upgrade.
>
NO current 8-VSB receiver except possibly the Hisense is capable of
MPEG4 decoding and they are not upgradeable. If you know of one let me
know I am looking for one.
>
> | SO saying that ATSC is heading for MPEG4 is insane. Any change would
> | open the door to the retesting of ALL known modulations including DVB-T,
> | ISDB-T and DMB-T from China.
>
> Not really. It would just be a new compression available for the same
> transport format.
>
Not a chance. All receivers will be obsolete, broadcasters will raise a
storm of protest if the latest modulation is not considered. It would be
another crime on the public to not upgrade modulation. Hey they can test
the latest 8-VSB upgrades and see if they can compete.
>
> |> | That means that countries like China, Malaysia, Borneo, Mongolia, the
> |> | Ivory Coast and Russia will have far better OTA DTV than the US.
> |>
> |> Actually not. Their OTA TV will be principly limited to urban areas
> |> and the areas served by repeaters and translators.
> |>
> | So you have the inside track on the long term DTV future of all these
> | countries? They will never deploy a substantial DTV coverage?
> |
> | And what if they don't for what ever reason possibly economic? They
> | still chose COFDM.
>
> I think you didn't understand what I said. For the kind of coverage done
> in the USA with one big transmitter, it's normal for many other countries
> to deploy multitudes of smaller transmitters.
>
Yes and that is another thing we should be doing. We have the most
inefficient OTA network there is.
>
> |>
> |> | The worst RF environment in the world, New York City has reception like
> |> | this mobile with COFDM and a single 100 Watt transmitter. This in a city
> |> | with MEGA (that is a MILLION) WATT DTV stations on the Empire State
> |> | Building that you can't receive 8 blocks away.
> |>
> |> Can't get analog their, either.
> |>
> | That has nothing to do with it but is also untrue in the most part. Mark
> | Schubin could/can receive all analog stations in his apartment watchable
> | with a simple antenna on the top of his TV. This was not and is not true
> | of 8-VSB even today. The only instance in which he could match NTSC
> | analog with 8-VSB was with an LG prototype a year ago just before LG
> | quit building any 8-VSB receivers.
>
> Just how good was this analog picture in the first place?
>
> Based on what I have read in a few places so far, there are plenty of
> people with snowy analog pictures that became crystal clear with ATSC
> and 8-VSB on the same antenna. That's rather good considering the power
> reduction in DTV.
>
Mark says they are all watchable. From what I have seen when there true.
All broadcasters would happily pay for such a system especially after
they are denied multicast must carry and must rely on OTA spectrum
>
> | Not true I am one of the few who actively tested and test the latest
> | 8-VSB receivers. I do so in the hope that we will find one we can use.
> | My ears are open unlike those of Congress, the FCC and most
> | broadcasters. Any of them doing any testing of receivers except Sinclair?
>
> The nature of OTA TV (big sticks, big power, wide reach) isn't going
> to change here, especially considering we have found a modulation that
> actually works with it.
>
Unfortunately we haven't and new competitors that will use balloons,
SFN's, and repeaters are about to launch on channels above 51. In a few
years if broadcasters are still stuck with 8-VSB and MPEG2 they will be
laughed off the air.
>
> |> | It is our spectrum, yours and mine and it could be receivable mobile and
> |> | portable on simple inexpensive receivers and simple omni antennas. It
> |> | could deliver TWICE the programming to us free and clear with MPEG4.
> |>
> |> The needs for fixed reception and mobile reception work differently.
> |> Trying to find one method that service both will be a compromise that
> |> ends up serving neither very well.
> |>
> | The only difference is that being able to receive mobile is only a
> | testament to the robustness of the signal. NOTHING else. If you can
> | receive mobile you also have the best system for fixed reception.
>
> No. It is a test of one aspect of robustness in favor of not having
> another aspect of robustness that you seem to not be interested in.
>
I have no idea what you mean??
>
> | I would love for you to explain a situation where a modulation that
> | works mobile would not work as well as another modulation when a fixed
> | site is tested. This should be good.
>
> COFDM has a lower average-to-peak signal strength than 8-VSB. That needs
> to be higher to have a greater information density in a give power spectrum.
>
BS!! In DC at the hearings in the summer of 2000, to counter that exact
argument, Sinclair broadcast 1080i COFDM DVB-T at 19.76 Mbps and it was
receivable on a single bow tie antenna in the hearing room while it was
walked around MOBILE. 8-VSB could not duplicate this feat even at 19.34
Mbps.
>
> | I had a standing offer to test COFDM against 8-VSB where I said that
> | using the same power and broadcast antenna with both COFDM and 8-VSB I
> | would let the 8-VSB folks pick any site where they could receive 8-VSB
> | and I would drive around that site receiving COFDM mobile.
>
> Same average power, or same peak power?
>
Same ERP, same transmitter power, same broadcast antenna.
> Presumably in locations on the order of 125 miles from the transmitter,
> where analog requires a big antenna on a tall mast, DTV can be expected
> to have a similar requirement. If a smaller antenna works in DTV, then
> there's more power than needed. Bring the power level down (which is
> being done with DTV as compared to analog) to where the same antenna
> works for the vast majority, then you have it about right. Do this for
> both 8-VSB and COFDM. Which will have the lowest power level?
>
COFDM will have the same or greater coverage at the same power level as
8-VSB in the real world at any power level above 20 kW.
>
> | There is no PERIOD in Washington. Broadcasters have been denied
> | multicast must carry twice and still they fight on. Multicast must carry
> | will only die after Congress gives it to broadcasters and then the cable
> | guys take it to the Supreme Court. Then ALL must carry will die.
>
> Remember what cable TV used to be long ago. It was supposed to be a
> means for those who didn't want the big antenna on the tall stick (in
> some places, tall enough to look over a mountain) to be able to get
> TV reception at all. Must carry came along to prevent cable serving
> this purpose from playing games with the broadcasters.
>
> I'll favor an exception to must carry on the basis of "all or nothing".
> That is a cable system can elect to _not_ be a "OTA provider" by not
> carrying any OTA at all. But if they choose to be an "OTA provider",
> then I think it is only right that they do it completely.
>
The world has changed and there are many more competitors. Must carry
won last time in the Supreme Court by one vote, a much more liberal
court than what we will have when this comes up. I can't imagine
broadcasters winning this one.
> Their argument that they don't have the bandwidth is a bunch of BS.
> They have the bandwidth and they know damned well they have the bandwidth.
> They just want to take the bandwidth for their own profiteering.
>
You ask who will pay for an upgrade to a better broadcast network. Cable
has spent 90 billion on upgrading THEIR network. Broadcasters have spent
peanuts so far on the DTV transition and will spend as little as
possible. Trying to get a decent return on those billions is not
profiteering it is doing what their stockholders expect of them. I don't
think in the modern world that broadcasters have any right to must carry
and I think the strict reading of the Constitution will agree with that.
>
> | The digital transition will be over when the last analog transmitter is
> | turned off not before. The rumor mill already says that both 2009 dates
> | are fictitious. That as the date set approaches broadcasters will go to
> | the public with a new set of delay tactics chief among which will be the
> | lack of receiver standards.
>
> There are new and growing voices to speed up the transition and grab
> the spectrum for public service and auctioning off. I'm sure some will
> have some delay tactics pulled, but overall it appears to be headed to
> happening.
>
It appeared to be happening in 1998 and again in 2000. They set a
deadline which they now are changing. If the voters are whipped into a
bad mood self righteous Congress critters will kill that deadline in a
heartbeat.
>
> | Congress will jump like a frog to get out of that boiling pot.
> | Broadcasters will not bring the temp up slowly. They will as one feign
> | indignation that receivers standards are not set or met.
>
> What standards are you talking about? Your perpetual quest to change
> it all to COFDM so you can watch TV while driving?
>
The standards that Congress and the FCC failed to set as to the
converter boxes that will be foisted on the public with the cheapest
technology available and no ability to decode MPEG4.
>
> | You will see services that compete directly with 8-VSB on channels above
> | 51 and they will work better using COFDM than 8-VSB does for both fixed
> | and mobile.
>
> These services will be using a completely different structure for their
> transmitters ... lots of smaller ones. That will indeed be interesting,
> but I will also just wait and see how well they cover rural areas like
> the entire states of West Virginia or Kansas.
>
Some of them will cover the US ubiquitously from the get-go with very
low power transmitters. I don't see how XM or Sirius will be able to
compete let alone current broadcasters with 8-VSB.
>
> | Also simply not true and NTSC was both portable, mobile and fixed. It
> | did not work well at any of them but that is no reason to give up mobile
> | and portable. That is another issue that broadcasters will feign
> | surprise at at the last moment.
>
> NTSC has always been more lousy at mobile that at fixed. A portable TV
> in downtown Wheeling WV gets all 3 locals on analog very lousy. And you
> can see the antenna towers from the right places. People do not expect
> it to work, so they have solved it one way or another, such as using cable,
> or a good directional antenna, or listen to the radio instead. DTV is
> not trying to cover these cases where analog didn't work well. Maybe it
> should have. But they weren't trying to change the whole model of TV.
> Perhaps if the likes of Qualcomm prove that a good deployment can really
> work, have 100% coverage, and be cheaper, maybe the next big transition
> in the future will be to that style of transmission. Then COFDM can shine.
> But that isn't the direction the regular stations are doing today.
>
Regular stations are going NOWHERE today. They are paying little
attention to OTA and concentrating on the struggle for multicast must carry.
NTSC was lousy for both mobile and fixed. The transition was all about
copying NTSC for both mobile and fixed and doing a better job. At the
hearings in 2000 the 8-VSB group promised that they would have 8-VSB
working mobile and easily with indoor antennas JUST like COFDM to
Congress. They even talked of doing it in six months or so. Press
releases BEFORE the hearings said that the latest 2nd or 3rd generation
8-VSB chips HAS solved ALL mobile and indoor reception problems.
Broadcasters as part of the delaying tactics will bring up this big time.
>
> | "Where is mobile reception? My God we can't let this transition happen.
> | We were promised mobile reception by the 8-VSB crowd way back in 2001."
> | broadcasters will say. "They said they would have it within six months.
> | That 8-VSB will work mobile as well as COFDM. That was after they said
> | they had it in 1999."
>
> I never heard such a promise. The promise I heard was better pictures,
> both in the form of cleaner pictures and higher definition capability.
>
No 8-VSB proponents promised mobile and portable equal to COFDM. They
said there was no inherent difference in the capabilities of the two
modulations. The only thing they have come up with is E-VSB which
doesn't work.
>
> | Broadcasters will also say "Won't have it in 2009 either. And the
> | broadcasters can use that tool at the last minute too. Hey US public the
> | government wants to take your analog away and do a digital that doesn't
> | work fixed, mobile or portable. they haven't set receiver standards and
> | they have ignored the fact that the rest of the world has a working DTV
> | system that works mobile and portable and fixed."
>
> It works fixed. Channel differences change the dynamics somewhat, but
> I've read where the FCC is granting power changes to some stations when
> they discover their DTV signal isn't getting to at least 99% of their
> previous analog coverage. Obviously, stations moving from VHF to UHF
> (as so many are doing) will have issues like this, especially in the
> fringe areas (UHF doesn't bend as easily).
>
There will a lot of lowering of full power authorizations because of
interference issues, not much increased power deals. The table of
allotments like the modulation decision was a fairy tale written in
political BS.
>
> | They are good at this. They are broadcasters and they can tell the story
> | well when it suits them.
>
>
> | Expect it about November of 2008. A major campaign. And after the delay
> | we will have switched to or allowed COFDM of some sort with a deadline
> | of 2012. By which time, because it will be in their interest, all
> | broadcasters will have switched to COFDM and will welcome the end of analog.
>
> All the very same cries about "they want to break your analog TV" will
> then be applied as "they want to break the digital TV you just bought"
> with regard to the switch to COFDM, if anyone ever gets serious with it.
>
> How many 8-VSB TVs and STBs that don't also include COFDM have been sold
> now?
>
It would have been easier in 2000 but it must and will happen if OTA is
to survive IMO.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:00:17 GMT Bob Miller <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | That is the question. There is NO reason to disenfranchise anyone. There
> | is no reason to give up mobile reception. There are DTV modulations that
> | would work for everyone with simple antennas. And they work mobile.
> | Surely the need to pay off a political debt contracted behind close
> | doors in 1993 is not a good enough reason for the disaster we are going
> | through with our DTV transition in 2005 is it?
>
> Mobile doesn't work with analog. I know, because I have tried. And
> that was while driving in direct line of sight of the former twin towers.
>
does work for many and there is no reason to give it up because of a
choise of modulation. Especially since with COFDM it works very well.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> David (da...@home.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net>
>>
>>>The power issue was a canard thrown up by the 8-VSB crowd. A non issue.
>>
>>Another incredibly stupid "Psycho Bob" lie...
>
>
> Correct, because if it wasn't an issue, then there would have been at least
> one COFDM test that duplicates the coverage of analog (or, today, 8VSB
> digital) in the US, and all sorts of bragging.
>
> But, since a test like this would show just how obscenely much power COFDM
> would take to duplicate coverage, it has never been done.
>
MSTV test, and though fraudulent, it proved that COFDM was better in the
far field than 8-VSB.
Of seven far field test where MSTV said COFDM failed and 8-VSB worked in
six of the seven locations, when Sinclair went back to those same seven
locations with the same "receiver" but now with a front end filter
required to make it a makeshift COFDM receiver, COFDM now worked in ALL
seven locations.
In all test around the world COFDM has won. The MSTV being the onle
exception due to fraud which Sinclair corrected.
UK test COFDM won.
Brazil test, COFDM won and Brazil rejected 8-vSB.
Australia test COFDM won
Taiwan test COFDM won.
Korean broadcaster test COFDM won and broadcasters there held out
against the lose 8-VSB for eitht years.
Germany and Finland COFDM won.
Etc.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> Elmo P. Shagnasty (el...@nastydesigns.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Like I said, I don't care about the technical aspects of it all. I
>>simply want OTA television that works.
>
>
> Well, in all cases (even in the UK, where COFDM is used), that means a
> roof-mounted antenna. It was true for analog, and even though the C/N
> ratio for perfect reception of digital is much lower than that for
> "acceptable" analog reception, you still need to get enough signal, and
> the average house wall blocks far too much.
>
the analog cut off is 3 kWs. The highest powered transmitter in the UK
is 20 kW. Most of the transmitters in the UK are 1 kW or less. Once they
up the power there will be no need for rooftop antennas in most areas.
They are not needed now in most areas though reccommended.
Here in the US people complain when the power of a DTV station is 50 kW
and want immediate full power at up to 1000 kW.
Bob Miller
Matthew L. Martin
So, once again you undermine one of your previous "killer" arguments:
that mobile TV reception is a feature of NTSC that ATSC with 8-VSB
doesn't duplicate.
You are funny.
Matthew
--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Jeff Rife
> > ratio for perfect reception of digital is much lower than that for
> > "acceptable" analog reception, you still need to get enough signal, and
> > the average house wall blocks far too much.
>
> a simple antenna; with digital, I need a $50 antenna to get anywhere
> near acceptable,
Or, you could have just spent that $50 for an outdoor antenna and you would
get perfect reception. That's assuming you have broadcasters that are
transmitting digital with the full power the FCC allows for their frequency.
Many are not.
Matt
?
I wasn't being an a**hole about it simply pointing out that I am two for two
so far. And the few others that I know that have also attempted DTV OTA
don't have any problems either. That's not to say I'm 100% happy. I still
don't get ABC here and never will until the move their broadcasting tower.
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TlO9f.3557$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jeff Rife
> > Well, in all cases (even in the UK, where COFDM is used), that means a
> > roof-mounted antenna. It was true for analog, and even though the C/N
> > ratio for perfect reception of digital is much lower than that for
> > "acceptable" analog reception, you still need to get enough signal, and
> > the average house wall blocks far too much.
> >
> The average power level of the 400 or so transmitters in the UK until
> the analog cut off is 3 kWs. The highest powered transmitter in the UK
> is 20 kW. Most of the transmitters in the UK are 1 kW or less.
Yes, we know, but then you don't need much power if you only need to cover
a 5mi radius because there is another transmitter with the exact same
signal less than 10 miles away.
Unfortunately, we can't have 100,000,000 transmitter towers in the US just
so that you can make money with your data transmission schemes.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/ActualCode.gif
Jeff Rife
> > would take to duplicate coverage, it has never been done.
> >
> It was done in Australia and COFDM won. It was done here in the US, the
> MSTV test, and though fraudulent, it proved that COFDM was better in the
> far field than 8-VSB.
There have been no tests of COFDM that where the coverage of the signal
matched existing analog coverage. None. Zero. Zip.
All the tests you claim where coverage is "identical" have in reality been
tests of only a few certain locations, and none even 50mi away, much less
the 100 or more that is required for actual coverage in the US.
As for Australia, the rest of us can read just how badly digital TV is
failing down there, although poor reception is only one cause.
--
Jeff Rife | "I have a question that could affect our entire
| relationship...did you kill Coach Mattay?"
| "No!"
| "But, you did dress him up like a woman...?"
| "Yeah."
| "Just checking."
| -- Alex Lambert and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Matthew L. Martin
> Um, OK.
>
> ?
>
> I wasn't being an a**hole about it simply pointing out that I am two for two
> so far. And the few others that I know that have also attempted DTV OTA
> don't have any problems either. That's not to say I'm 100% happy. I still
> don't get ABC here and never will until the move their broadcasting tower.
>
If bob were to be believed, you would get ABC if they switched to COFDM
instead.
Matthew L. Martin
>
> But still, it's annoying.
>
So? NTSC was exactly the same situation where I grew up. You could get
one channel, poorly with rabbit ears. Three or four quite well with roof
top antennas. That was annoying, but it is what was required to get
reception.
BTW, bob's alternative (COFDM) is no better than 8-VSB in almost all
stationary reception applications except where there chronic impulse
noise. COFDM does not tolerate impulse noise well. I suspect that you
would be annoyed if you lost your DTV picture and sound every time your
furnace cycled on or off.
David
Did you know that all satisfied OTA HDTV viewers in forums like this are out
to get you?
David
news:xcqdnQy-oZW...@comcast.com...
> Come on, just because the "Internet buzz" is that Terk sucks doesnt mean
> they do. In my case I use a Terk TV38 in the attic here in Parker, Co. It
> pulls in just as well as any other "better because the internet says so"
> antenna does.
>
> When I lived in California the Terk TV38 that was mounted to the roof of
> the house pulled stations in from San Francisco which was 125 miles from
> my house. All that without an amplifier. I know, curvature of the planet,
> blah, blah, blah... All I know is that I was able to watch CBS and UPN in
> DTV from SF and Ilived 20 miles east of Sac. So there, Terk antennas do
> and can work!
>
>
>> I was sure you had some obvious reasons why DTV "doesn't work" for you
>> ...
>> And just for starters, you're actually trying to use a _TERK_ antenna??
>> :-/
>>
>
Matt, I used to work as a home theater installer in the 80's/90's and every
job I was
sent to with a Terk antenna returned them.
Almost every posting I see about them is the same, they just don't work. I'm
surprised yours works so
fantastically well. I wonder if that model is really enginneered by Terk.
Matthew L. Martin
> In article <11mflr7...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <not...@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>>But still, it's annoying.
>>>
>>
>>So? NTSC was exactly the same situation where I grew up. You could get
>>one channel, poorly with rabbit ears. Three or four quite well with roof
>>top antennas. That was annoying, but it is what was required to get
>>reception.
>
>
>
> With analog transmission, OTA is fine.
>
> With digital? No.
>
> THAT'S what's annoying.
Have you called the station in question? Do you know if it is
broadcasting with anything close to the same power as the analog
stations. Your problem may be with the power level, too low or too high.
If you don't want to bother with trying to figure out what is wrong,
that's fine, just don't expect much sympathy for your problem.
> It's one thing to say "I lived in the country and we needed a rooftop
> with a rotor". It's another thing to live in the city, a few miles from
> the towers, and get decent, watchable analog reception--but see that the
> same broadcasters can't delivery a digital signal worth a crap.
>
"Can't" isn't the same as "don't". I suspect "don't" is the correct term.
akj...@excite.com
I would have worded the last sentence... "Fortunately, we won't have
100,000,000 transmitter towers in the US..."
David
news:4rtfm11nhkdnlfu5k...@4ax.com...
Why? I think our government should do whatever it can to ruin our HDTV
system and let Miller's company line their pockets with COFDM mobile
datacasting profits. <g>
David
"Bob Miller" <ro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pkO9f.3554$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It was a good one for the US, and a good way to keep you from profiting from
it.
BTW as I've been recommending, have you sent your resumé to any (successful)
datacasting companies as of yet?
Matt Mac Donagh
hard for that antenna not to work. The thing is huge. It was a total pain to
install in the attic!
Matt
Tam/WB2TT
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:dk87u...@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:22:24 -0500 Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net>
> wrote:
>
> | Once the analog stations have gone away, presumably the UHF DT stations
> will
> | be able to increase their power to the 2+ MW level.
>
> I don't think they will be going that high. There is no need to go any
> higher than covering 100% of what was previously covered, though it might
> be nice to push the edge out a bit as long as it doesn't push back in on
> the next station on the same channel. It would be nice to be able to get
> something on every UHF channel. I'll definitely be checking channel 37 to
> see who shows up there :-)
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
> http://ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just took a scan at about 10 different market areas. No channel 37
anywhere. Wonder if they gave that away for some other use.
Tam
Jeff Rife
> effort on the coax run...
If you need to rotate an outdoor antenna to get the reception you want,
then no indoor antenna will do the job. Most indoor antennas have a gain
of between -3dB and 2dB. Yes, that's right, some indoor antennas are
actually *worse* than a dipole.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/MoneyToConsultants.gif
Jeff Rife
>
Well, there is also co-channel and adjacent channel interference to
consider, as well as "analog swamping" where an 5,000kW analog transmitter
is on the same tower as the 500kW digital transmitter, even if they are
on quite different frequencies. This will all go away once analog is
shut off, but these problems are real for now, unfortunately.
It would really, really help if you told us where you lived (in general
terms, anyway).
> And besides, shouldn't television just work in this day and age?
It does, when broadcasters do the right thing.
> You make it sound like the equivalent of cars in 1910: we should all be
> mechanics, getting our hands dirty and expecting to have to work
> constantly on getting OTA reception.
That's a fact of life with digital right now.
Examples:
- the local ABC station sometimes forgets to switch their audio encoder
correctly, so that you end up with some very weird things like no
voice because they feed only LF and RF from the 5.1 source into the
encoder
- the local NBC has some issues with the digital signal just going black--
sometimes with and sometimes without sound
The only way to tell if these are problems with reception (they aren't
here) is to get the stations off their asses and make sure *they* are doing
all the right things. These sorts of problems wouldn't last 5 seconds
on the analog transmission, because that's how the ad dollars are
calculated.
> > "Can't" isn't the same as "don't". I suspect "don't" is the correct term.
>
> OK, then they "don't deliver a digital signal worth a crap."
>
> But that doesn't make their actions any less wrong.
Complain to the FCC then. That's who is letting stations get away with
using microwave ovens for transmitters (my local UPN is 1.14kW, and doesn't
cover a 5-mile radius, much less the 100+ mile radius that the analog
signal from the same station covers).
--
Jeff Rife | "Having your book turned into a movie is like
| seeing your ox turned into bouillon cubes."
|
| -- John Le Carré
Grant Edwards
> Elmo P. Shagnasty (el...@nastydesigns.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> And some more money to mount it, and rotate it, and spend the time and
>> effort on the coax run...
>
> If you need to rotate an outdoor antenna to get the reception you want,
> then no indoor antenna will do the job. Most indoor antennas have a gain
> of between -3dB and 2dB. Yes, that's right, some indoor antennas are
> actually *worse* than a dipole.
Are TV antenna gains referenced to a dipole or an isotropic
radiator?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! It's OKAY -- I'm an
at INTELLECTUAL, too.
visi.com
Bob Miller
> Elmo P. Shagnasty (el...@nastydesigns.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>Have you called the station in question?
>>
>>Several stations. They're all doing it, to some degree or another.
>
>
> Well, there is also co-channel and adjacent channel interference to
> consider, as well as "analog swamping" where an 5,000kW analog transmitter
> is on the same tower as the 500kW digital transmitter, even if they are
> on quite different frequencies. This will all go away once analog is
> shut off, but these problems are real for now, unfortunately.
>
> It would really, really help if you told us where you lived (in general
> terms, anyway).
>
>
>>And besides, shouldn't television just work in this day and age?
>
the world standard COFDM.
>
> It does, when broadcasters do the right thing.
>
It doesn't even when they do all the right things. What exactly are the
broadcasters in New York City doing wrong? Most people can't get
reception in the city. What are broadcasters supposed to do to make
things right.
Any suggestion will be passed on to our broadcasters.
>
>>You make it sound like the equivalent of cars in 1910: we should all be
>>mechanics, getting our hands dirty and expecting to have to work
>>constantly on getting OTA reception.
>
>
> That's a fact of life with digital right now.
>
Not in most other countries who have adopted COFDM. As this video shows
in New York City you could receive COFDM mobile in the worst RF
environment. On the street with multipath coming at you from every angle
and all kinds of possible holes for reception. Even cell phones are a
big problem here in the biggest market in the country.
And yet there is NO problem with COFDM with a simple 100 Watt
transmitter. NO IMPULSE noise problem even though every kind of impulse
noise is being generated all around us and if there wasn't any at 39th
and Park there will be a lot at 5th and 59th but watch the video. NO
IMPULSE noise problem at all.
The problems of 8-VSB are NOT the problems of the digital DTV life
today, they are PROBLEMS WITH 8-VSB period!!! They are the problems of
8-VSB in the US period.
Bob Miller
> Examples:
>
> - the local ABC station sometimes forgets to switch their audio encoder
> correctly, so that you end up with some very weird things like no
> voice because they feed only LF and RF from the 5.1 source into the
> encoder
>
> - the local NBC has some issues with the digital signal just going black--
> sometimes with and sometimes without sound
>
> The only way to tell if these are problems with reception (they aren't
> here) is to get the stations off their asses and make sure *they* are doing
> all the right things. These sorts of problems wouldn't last 5 seconds
> on the analog transmission, because that's how the ad dollars are
> calculated.
>
>
>>>"Can't" isn't the same as "don't". I suspect "don't" is the correct term.
>>
>>OK, then they "don't deliver a digital signal worth a crap."
>>
>>But that doesn't make their actions any less wrong.
>
>
> Complain to the FCC then. That's who is letting stations get away with
> using microwave ovens for transmitters (my local UPN is 1.14kW, and doesn't
> cover a 5-mile radius, much less the 100+ mile radius that the analog
> signal from the same station covers).
>
But you were saying that COFDM needs more power than 8-VSB. With a 100
Watt transmitter in NYC, 1000 Watts or 1 kW ERP we were able to receive
mobile DTV 25 miles away out past Kennedy airport.
So 8-VSB can't handle 5 miles with 1.4 kW. That is interesting.
Bob Miller
Jeff Rife
> Are TV antenna gains referenced to a dipole or an isotropic
> radiator?
Dipole.
--
Jeff Rife |
| Visualize Whirled Peas
Jeff Rife
>
> so, why?
Because of people like Bob Miller.
There was so much FUD (about 8VSB being replaced in the US by COFDM) sown
by people like him that stations didn't buy the equipment for digital
early. Then, when FCC deadlines loomed, they begged for STAs so they
could get up and running with the very minimum they could.
This led to more FUD from friends of Bob Miller (Sinclair stations, mostly)
about how digital TV wasn't taking off fast enough, so maybe the standards
should be revisited.
But, stations that had the foresight (or were encouraged by the parent
networks) got going and did things mostly right. But, this is still new
technology, and some things aren't well thought out by the stations or
even by the companies that build the equipment.
All this has created a digital have/have not effect in the US where some
places (like the DC area where I live) are doing well as far as digital
TV is concerned, while other places have next to nothing.
> My impression is that the digital side is not being taken seriously by
> the local broadcasters.
Why should they? It brings in no income, costs them money, and isn't
counted in the ratings. If it was counted in the ratings, they'd take it
a *lot* more seriously, since HDTV viewers are the dream target audience
of most advertisers because they have the disposable income to be early
or semi-early adopters of expensive technology.
> Actually, if you think about it, right now is when the advertisers
> should be incenting the broadcasters to make digital happen correctly
> and well--because right now is when I'm more likely to watch live TV,
> commercials and all, if it's decently high definition. I don't have HD
> DVR or anything like that, so if I want to watch a superior picture, I
> have to watch live with commercials.
At this point, a very large percentage of HD viewers have HD DVRs of some
sort, because they are being built, and *somebody* has to use them. I'm
a little behind the curve (for me) in that I only have 3 HD DVRs with a
total of 4 HD tuners. NFL on Sunday is the only thing I watch live,
because the networks keep you too up to date on other games to watch them
delayed at all.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/Blackboard.gif