| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
5th Generation ATSC Tuner Available in LG's LZ30 Series
Ok,
Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. Also, below is a quote from the LG press release date January 6th, 2005 that says their LZ30 line has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. http://us.lge.com/AboutUs.do?myActio...000001&seq=162 " The 55LP1D is complemented by the LZ30 series, which includes new sleek and slender 42-, 37- and 30-inch widescreen direct-view LCD HDTVs, which receive free over-the-air digital broadcasts without the need for a separate set-top box. These integrated HDTVs feature LG's fifth-generation ATSC VSB/QAM tuner, which receives terrestrial digital HDTV and unscrambled digital cable broadcasts, and an NTSC tuner for conventional analog TV broadcasts." Rick, = remove ZZZ for correct email address. |
Rickk wrote:
Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Matthew |
Matthew,
So are you saying YES, 5th Generation ATSC Tuners are available in LG's curent LZ30 line? Sorry, I didn't quite follow your response. Rick "Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ... Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Matthew |
Good find, looks like they are available.
We've never had any big problems with 1st generation receivers, though. YMMV. "Rickk" wrote in message ... Matthew, So are you saying YES, 5th Generation ATSC Tuners are available in LG's curent LZ30 line? Sorry, I didn't quite follow your response. Rick "Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ... Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Matthew |
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:08:50 -0500, "David" wrote:
Good find, looks like they are available. We've never had any big problems with 1st generation receivers, though. YMMV. LOL Bob haters ;) |
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote: Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's. |
BobT wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote: Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's. Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in integrated sets. His obvious intent was to mislead: As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG receiver. Bob Miller Matthew |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
BobT wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote: Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's. Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in integrated sets. His obvious intent was to mislead: As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG receiver. Bob Miller Matthew In answer to Matt's obvious intent to mislead.... From the post below Quoting myself.... "The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every day. And now we hear that LG will not even make stand alone receivers. They will only include them in their HDTV sets. That will give them a MAJOR competitive advantage. And Hisense says they will not deploy 5th generation receivers till their current stocks run out, six months, a year?? I don't know. " One of many post where I said that LG would deliver 5th gen receivers in integrated sets. Bob Miller wrote: Otto Pylot wrote: In article .com, wrote: Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of 2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models? Thanks. I've got a 4th gen LG LST-4200A that has worked flawlessly since day one. What's wrong with a good 4th gen? 4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which are multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind, airplanes and buildings. 4th generation especially has problems with reception with indoor antenna because of multipath both static and dynamic. That means that people walking around the room can cause loss of signal as can static multipath from signals bouncing around the room. The success of DTV OTA depends on having receivers that work for everybody not just a few. Receivers that work in all conditions not just when things are just right and you have the rooftop rotorized antenna pointed the right way. The ideal receiver would work with an antenna that could be included in the HDTV set or simply placed on top and be a simple loop, rabbit ears or monopole $2 antenna. It should work in New York City apartments and I personally believe it should work in the back seat of your car, on a train, on your boat or in a bus, in the back of our 16 wheeler or at the beach. With COFDM antennas small enough to fit on cell phones work very well. This video of three screens are receiving mobile in the worst RF environment in the world, New York City from a 100 Watt transmitter. The antennas range from a three inch omni monopole to a 15 inch monopole. www.viacel.com/bob.wmv For the life of me I can't imagine why you would want to leave any of those scenarios out if you didn't have to. That is if you could have a receiver that did all of the above and more why not? Why wouldn't you want to receive OTA DTV on your boat? How about on a portable TV that has a screen but also lets you plug in 1080P glasses? The antenna is built into these portable DTVs. (COFDM) http://www.i4u.com/article2231.html http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1D7213F9 http://www.followmedia-tv.com/ and these phones with minuscule antennas. Wouldn't these antennas look better on your roof? http://www.itmedia.co.jp/mobile/0308/08/sanyo.html Video demo http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules....rticle&sid=741 And in spite of the FCC the US, as this article notes, may actually be getting back to the cutting edge with cell phone DTV (COFDM of course) in Pittsburgh of all places. http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1234000483023527/ This article says that DVB-H will clean the clock of DMB-T being offered by S. Korean companies. Before this is over LG and friends are going to be sorry they picked the 8-VSB modulation. It forced them to then find a Mobile modulation (DMB-T) to satisfy their broadcasters. Now they are riding two horses both of which are the wrong ones. DMB-T uses an old form of COFDM so even the loser has the right modulation sort of. How about combining a gizmo like this with 80 Gigs of video and music files http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01...reen/index.php with glasses like these with 1080P HDTV capability. http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01...reen/index.php COFDM and its DVB-T and DVB-H win in the end world-wide and that means here in the US also. Just a matter of time. So why did we give up all these possibilities? Channels 2 thru 51 can't do any of this. They could do HDTV just like 8-VSB with COFDM and have all these capabilities. Why don't we? Why are we one of the few countries in the world that can't? Australia and Japan can and they also can do HD. France will and they will have HD. We can't. Why? Did we get something in return? We made a big sacrifice. We have to have rooftop antennas (at least till later this year). We don't have mobile reception, why not? What did we get for the sacrifice? DUH!!! NOTHING? Wrong answer. What we got was higher royalty payments, ten times higher. Nice trade, lose a lot of functionality and get to pay more money for the privilege. And while the royalty payments that we pay (remember 10 time higher for 8-VSB than COFDM) go to a foreign corporation, LG, the royalties that most other countries citizens pay (10% of our payments) go to mostly US patent holders. Isn't that weird? IN an age when the US exports IP. That is what we sell mostly. We have elected to send IP royalty payments overseas to a foreign company while the rest of the world thinks our IP (Intellectual property) is better. AND IT IS! COFDM is American and it is far better. And LG isn't shy about telling its shareholders how much, $100,000,000 per year it was worth once the FCC MANDATED receivers in every DTV set. 4th generation receivers do not work well in most apartments in Manhattan. I know because I have tried four and OWN two. I have tried over a number of years COFDM and 8-VSB in different cities and different conditions. 5th generation LG receivers are the first 8-VSB receivers that work in static multipath decent enough TO BE SOLD. In my opinion NO receiver that has been sold to date should have been. We should not even have started our digital transition in the US until we had a receiver that worked at least as well as LG 5th generation receivers. The FCC has let us down. They did not look out for the consumer which is their PRIMARY job. They specifically looked out for LG Industries. Go figure. You have to ask yourselves why the FCC first of all picked a modulation that was so flawed and second why did they stick with it so long. Why did they believe LG and others when they said that they would have fix for 8-VSB that would make it work MOBILE and have no problem with reception with simple indoor antennas IN SIX MONTHS starting January 11th 2001. We have to date only seen a 5th generation receiver. It is not even on the market yet and it does not work MOBILE nor does the E-VSB that was supposed to specifically work mobile. The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every day. And now we hear that LG will not even make stand alone receivers. They will only include them in their HDTV sets. That will give them a MAJOR competitive advantage. And Hisense says they will not deploy 5th generation receivers till their current stocks run out, six months, a year?? I don't know. In 2000 the FCC had a review of both COFDM and 8-VSB. They then had a test (allowed by the FCC) that was conducted by the industry, that was brazen in your face fraud. In the last hour of the last FCC administration they re-affirmed 8-VSB on January 19th 2001. And now we hear that our Chairman of the FCC Powell is frustrated at the pace of the DTV OTA transition. He could have turned it around many times. He could turn it around today. He won't because he does not have the best interest of the public at heart. I would like to think otherwise but it has been too long a wait for any actions from the FCC that would suggest otherwise. Bob Miller |
Bob Miller wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote: BobT wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote: Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's. Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in integrated sets. His obvious intent was to mislead: As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG receiver. Bob Miller Matthew In answer to Matt's obvious intent to mislead.... Sorry bob. I quoted everything you said in your most recent thread intended to sow FUD. Nowhere in that thread did you state that 5th generation chips would appear in integrated sets. Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation in any generation of receiver. Matthew |
Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have
severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation in any generation of receiver. Matthew There you go again Matt, confusing BOB with facts. |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote: Matthew L. Martin wrote: BobT wrote: On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote: Rickk wrote: Ok, Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available yet. That's probably because you were misled by bob. Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's. Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in integrated sets. His obvious intent was to mislead: As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG receiver. Bob Miller Matthew In answer to Matt's obvious intent to mislead.... Sorry bob. I quoted everything you said in your most recent thread intended to sow FUD. Nowhere in that thread did you state that 5th generation chips would appear in integrated sets. Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation in any generation of receiver. Matthew Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't crash 51% of the time. "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. |
Bob Miller wrote:
"Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the increased power required to be competitive in the far field. Matthew |
Bob Miller wrote:
Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't crash 51% of the time. "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. Care to cite a study that backs up your silly claim? From the reports we get in this newsgroup the success rate for OTA reception appears to be well above 75%. With proper antenna systems, it could be _+MUCH+_ higher. Matthew |
Matthew L. Martin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation in any generation of receiver. The people beta-testing the MDP-130 PCI card (which uses a 5th generation ATI chipset) say that it has more multipath resistance but is also slightly more sensitive (not a lot, but some). So, I think one thing that might happen is that 5th gen chipsets will make a difference even in non-multipath situations just because they have other "new" things. -- Jeff Rife | "Eternity with nerds. It's the Pasadena Star | Trek convention all over again." | | -- Nichelle Nichols, "Futurama" |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote: "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the increased power required to be competitive in the far field. Matthew Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB. That is almost a full 100% more power necessary for 8-VSB than COFDM. Tables may have been turned. I am waiting for the official results. Anyone using COFDM would not be interested in the power requirements to BLAST signal from a single 2000 ft antenna anyway. They would/will, as Qualcomm and Crown Castle, build SFN's that will use 100 Watt to 50 kW transmitters on low 500 ft or less towers. Their power bills will be much lower as will their combined rent. The Empire State Building has a monopoly on height and little space, imagine the rent. We were able to put transmitters on apartment buildings (which had special roofs and facilities just for us) for $1000 to $2000 a month and we used solid state transmitters. The rent included the electric. Can you imagine the electric bill for a MEGAWatt liquid cooled transmitter on the ESB??? And if something knocked one of our transmitters out it was hard to tell without a spectrum analyzer. Not so with the World Trade Center. Most TV was wiped out in New York. What we are doing in the US is ancient stuff. We are only doing it because broadcasters depend on must carry here and could care less about their OTA spectrum. That is going to change. Bob Miller |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote: Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't crash 51% of the time. "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. Care to cite a study that backs up your silly claim? From the reports we get in this newsgroup the success rate for OTA reception appears to be well above 75%. With proper antenna systems, it could be _+MUCH+_ higher. Matthew Proper antenna systems with COFDM are small enough to fit in a cell phone. Proper antennas with a 5th gen 8-VSB receiver are a $2 loop antenna. But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit, BTW, 5 miles from the ESB in Manhattan if you have bad multipath. BTW I will accept 75%. That is HORRIBLE. Not much better than 51%. As the military, DoD, said about COFDM compared to 8-VSB, " we normally think in terms of 99% plus in our RF systems." They were looking at 35% to 65% for 8-VSB at the time. Berlin's system was designed for 98% indoor reception in the coverage area with COFDM. In Manhattan with 4th gen receivers the number must be something like 20%. I will grant that 5th gen could take 8-VSB to over 95% for fixed reception in Manhattan. But there is still no reason for the US to have a grossly inferior DTV modulation to the rest of the world. Bob Miller |
"Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. The only thing 'stagnating' BOB, are your lies. |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ... Bob Miller wrote: Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't crash 51% of the time. "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. Care to cite a study that backs up your silly claim? From the reports we get in this newsgroup the success rate for OTA reception appears to be well above 75%. With proper antenna systems, it could be _+MUCH+_ higher. I guess me and the only other two people I know who have tried OTA are just unlucky, 100% are in your 25%. With your success rate at least one would be working just fine, but that is just not the case. Like I posted some months ago, A salesman at a high end store said that about half of their installs cannot receive OTA, and he look puzzled as to why. Anyway, seems that most people who have problems just give up and get a cable box, like I did (at least until football season is over). This leaves only the ones who have no problems or are technical enough to solve small problems (but most people want and need plug and play) to post in this group, thus your 75%. Matthew |
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:45:49 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote: Matthew L. Martin wrote: Bob Miller wrote: "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the increased power required to be competitive in the far field. Matthew Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB. As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth. The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands of pre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference). Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.) and from http://www.smpte.org.au/industrynews.asp HEADLINES Updated 12-01-05 "China Announces DTV Chip A university in Shanghai says it has designed China’s first home-made digital TV chip in collaboration with two domestic companies - Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation." Their First TV chip.. and it's only Jan 12 .. 2005.. "The China Daily newspaper reported that the chip, known as "Zhongshi No 1", was designed based on China's Digital Multimedia Television Broadcasting (DMB-T) standard. It quoted Zhou Dian, president of the School of Microelectronics at Fudan University, as saying the chip had outdone European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of digital TV." Claims only.. we'll see how it really performs, if it ever get's deployed. COFDM's achilles heal (impulse noise) never showed it true colors in a laboratory environment. "According to other reports, however, China's digital TV standard is losing appeal among manufacturers and broadcasters, which have been turning to foreign systems after Beijing failed to announce its own standards." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Looks like China is having some problems... "The China Daily newspaper reported that regulators have been pushing for China to develop its own digital TV standards, hoping to avoid dependence on Western technology and nurture a new domestic industry. But after they missed a deadline to issue a digital TV standard by the end of 2003, broadcasters and manufacturers have been exploring foreign standards." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Still sitting on the fence??? State-owned Guangdong Radio & Television New Technology Development is using DVB-T for a trial programme to broadcast to receivers in taxis, public buses and other vehicles. Similar trials of "mobile television" are starting in Beijing and the central province of Hunan. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We in the US don't care for mobile TV.. It's a dangerous distraction for the driver, and inherently low def.. P.S. Have you ever try to read a book while traveling in a car? Did you get a headache trying it? Do you know why??? |
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:20:15 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote: Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in integrated sets. I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there are several of Bob's posts that made that statement. Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you. |
BobT wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:20:15 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote: Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in integrated sets. I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a good idea to at least stay close to the truth. I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the truth therefore he deserves no respect. Check Google, there are several of Bob's posts that made that statement. All of which are conspicuously absent from the quoted thread (his most recent on the subject). Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you. A data point that bob will ignore. Matthew |
Tim Keating wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:45:49 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Matthew L. Martin wrote: Bob Miller wrote: "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation. In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the increased power required to be competitive in the far field. Matthew Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB. As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth. The only place that the supposed and past tense 2 to 4 db of advantage 8-VSB had over COFDM was in LAB TEST. In the real world country after country that picked COFDM could not find this difference. I agree with you "all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world". And now that lab testing that doesn't mean "squat" says that COFDM has the advantage by 2.5 db anyway. The hard way? Selling all the receivers they can make? Pace pulled out of the market in the UK because there are so many players profit margins have shrunk. 25% of purchases of OTA COFDM receivers are people buying second, third and fourth receivers as gifts or for other TV sets. The test that China did were as near to 19.3 Mbps as possible for HD which is what a US 6 MHz channel can handle. The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands of pre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference). China has thousand of pre-existing TV stations on the air, I don't get your point. 6 MHz is a non issue when considering what is that best modulation. 8-VSB does not offer some advantage in a 6 MHz channel that COFDM does not. Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.) That did happen in 1999 and 2000 with a bad design for the first 2K DVB-T receivers in the UK. Couldn't have been too bad since they sold a lot of them and people still use them. Later designs have eliminated impulse noise as a problem. I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM receiver has no problem with. and from I am familiar with all that is happening in China. Most of this is now old news only a couple of months later. China is close to the final touches on DMB-T and everyone seems happy with it. We will test it as soon as we can. http://www.smpte.org.au/industrynews.asp HEADLINES Updated 12-01-05 "China Announces DTV Chip A university in Shanghai says it has designed China’s first home-made digital TV chip in collaboration with two domestic companies - Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation." Their First TV chip.. and it's only Jan 12 .. 2005.. "The China Daily newspaper reported that the chip, known as "Zhongshi No 1", was designed based on China's Digital Multimedia Television Broadcasting (DMB-T) standard. It quoted Zhou Dian, president of the School of Microelectronics at Fudan University, as saying the chip had outdone European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of digital TV." Claims only.. we'll see how it really performs, if it ever get's deployed. COFDM's achilles heal (impulse noise) never showed it true colors in a laboratory environment. "According to other reports, however, China's digital TV standard is losing appeal among manufacturers and broadcasters, which have been turning to foreign systems after Beijing failed to announce its own standards." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Looks like China is having some problems... "The China Daily newspaper reported that regulators have been pushing for China to develop its own digital TV standards, hoping to avoid dependence on Western technology and nurture a new domestic industry. But after they missed a deadline to issue a digital TV standard by the end of 2003, broadcasters and manufacturers have been exploring foreign standards." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Still sitting on the fence??? State-owned Guangdong Radio & Television New Technology Development is using DVB-T for a trial programme to broadcast to receivers in taxis, public buses and other vehicles. Similar trials of "mobile television" are starting in Beijing and the central province of Hunan. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We in the US don't care for mobile TV.. It's a dangerous distraction for the driver, and inherently low def.. Amazingly ignorant statement. 60% of SUV's sold by Chrysler come with built in rear seat DVD players. That is before the after market which is going crazy with this stuff. Sirius and XM have both announced that they would be offering satellite TV. Qualcomm and Crown Castle are both getting into the business with national plans. We OBVIOUSLY care a great deal about TV in the vehicle. Bob Miller P.S. Have you ever try to read a book while traveling in a car? Did you get a headache trying it? Do you know why??? |
Bob Miller wrote:
Tim Keating wrote: We in the US don't care for mobile TV.. It's a dangerous distraction for the driver, and inherently low def.. Amazingly ignorant statement. 60% of SUV's sold by Chrysler come with built in rear seat DVD players. That is before the after market which is going crazy with this stuff. Sirius and XM have both announced that they would be offering satellite TV. Qualcomm and Crown Castle are both getting into the business with national plans. We OBVIOUSLY care a great deal about TV in the vehicle. The only thing that is obvious is that certain concerns are going to try low definition satellite delivery of video content. There is no guarantee that those efforts are going to succeed (technically or as a business model), just as there is no guarantee that your scheme will succeed. Matthew |
But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big
ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit Yet ANOTHER lie from BOB!! He's on a roll folks, don't stop him. We all know that many people have no problems getting perfectly gorgeous 8VSB reception with antennas in attics, small outdoor antennas, and yes, in SOME cases, larger antennas with rotors. And to say these lareger antennas with rotors "will not help a bit" is as bold a face lie as you've ever told. You are a despicable little man BOB! You will never understand that we are here watching your posts and catching you in each and every LIE you tell. |
"Vidguy7" wrote in message
... But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit Yet ANOTHER lie from BOB!! He's on a roll folks, don't stop him. We all know that many people have no problems getting perfectly gorgeous 8VSB reception with antennas in attics, small outdoor antennas, and yes, in SOME cases, larger antennas with rotors. And to say these lareger antennas with rotors "will not help a bit" is as bold a face lie as you've ever told. You are a despicable little man BOB! You will never understand that we are here watching your posts and catching you in each and every LIE you tell. Bob must be referring to an antenna like this one: http://www.satalogue.com/section7/page3.htm |
"BobT" wrote
I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there are several of Bob's posts that made that statement. Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you. Bob, you should be really grateful [as we all should] that we have 8VSB HDTV. Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000, trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of lying, even then. http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/d...ly/000137.html ! |
I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a
fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM receiver has no problem with. Funny BOB, I can't get any of my 8VSB receivers to do that. However, my XM radio, relying on COFDM repeaters, DOES have problems getting a steady signal. So much for real world use of COFDM. |
Bob must be referring to an antenna like this one:
http://www.satalogue.com/section7/page3.htm Now THAT'S funny! :) |
David wrote:
"BobT" wrote I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there are several of Bob's posts that made that statement. Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you. Bob, you should be really grateful [as we all should] that we have 8VSB HDTV. Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000, trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of lying, even then. http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/d...ly/000137.html If you care to visit the content free site of viacel, you can click on the email link and send a message to bob miller: http://www.viacel.com/ I think he would be better off without a website than with that pathetic page. Matthew |
Vidguy7 ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit Yet ANOTHER lie from BOB!! He's on a roll folks, don't stop him. We all know that many people have no problems getting perfectly gorgeous 8VSB reception with antennas in attics, small outdoor antennas, and yes, in SOME cases, larger antennas with rotors. You forgot all the people that do use indoor antennas like the Silver Sensor. I can't, because of the metal in my house (beams and siding), but when I was testing my outdoor antenna by connecting it in the basement, I got about half the channels. I could probably get all of them from inside the attic, but it's no big deal to mount an outdoor antenna. -- Jeff Rife | "What's goin' on down here?" | "Oh, we're playing house." | "But, that boy is all tied up." | "...Roman Polanski's house." | -- Lois and Stewie Griffin, "Family Guy" |
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
Proper antenna systems with COFDM are small enough to fit in a cell phone. Then, why is it that in Tokyo, you are REQUIRED to have an outdoor rooftop-mounted directional yagi? Why is it that the BBC's own web page says that you need a rooftop-mounted antenna? Bob Miller is a pathological liar. When he doesn't know the facts, he just makes things up. When he knows a limited set of facts, he puts them together into complete non-sequitors to create lies. Bob Miller is particularly fond of quoting articles that do not support his claims. He's been caught doing this numerous time with English language articles; he does it even more when there are foreign language articles with pictures. Unfortunately for Bob, people bother to read the articles and some even understand the foreign language in question. There is currently *no* cell phone that receives terrestrial broadcast COFDM based television. Nor are there any announced cell phones that do so. There are cell phones in Japan that receive *analog* television (just as poorly as the 1988 vintage Casio TV-400 series), and there are cell phones which receive digital video content from W-CDMA cell phone providers at 15fps. The latter may be terrestrial, and it may be digital, and (as it has audio and video) is arguably television; but it is most assuredly not the terrestrial digital television which is available experimentally in Tokyo. Even battery-powered portable digital TVs are at least two years in the future in Japan. Digital TV reception is a big problem. Even less than 2 miles from the transmitter with an outdoor antenna, frequent pixellation occurs. The service area doesn't even cover all of Tokyo municipality, much less any suburbs. Nor is the programming on terrestrial digital TV in Japan particularly interesting yet. The newspapers don't even bother to list it yet. Most Japanese who have HDTV subscribe to satellite, which *is* listed in the newspapers. None of this is to imply that COFDM is a worse choice than 8-VSB for Japan. Almost the entire population of Japan lives in densely populated cities, generally on the coastline. Their population is about half the US, and less than 30% of Japan's landmass (on four large islands and numerous small ones) is inhabitable. Mountainous terrain limits the broadcast area. Consequently, COFDM probably does work better there. Nevertheless, it is nonsense to imply, as pathological liar Bob Miller has done, that this renders COFDM "better" than 8-VSB for use in North America; nor does it create products that exist only in Bob Miler's psychotic imagination. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:43:59 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote: Tim Keating wrote: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:45:49 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Matthew L. Martin wrote: Bob Miller wrote: "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is evident after these last 7 years of stagnation In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the increased power required to be competitive in the far field. Matthew Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB. As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth. The only place that the supposed and past tense 2 to 4 db of advantage 8-VSB had over COFDM was in LAB TEST. In the real world country after 1.) COFDM's S/N floor varies based on bit rate and bandwidth. country that picked COFDM could not find this difference. I agree with you "all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world". And now that lab testing that doesn't mean "squat" says that Obviously , since they did not factor in the REAL WORLD impulse noise into the equation. COFDM has the advantage by 2.5 db anyway. ATSC HDTV broadcasts using COFDM will always will be at a 5dB S/N Disadvantage when compared with 8VSB in the US (6Mhz) markets. 2.) And that's not counting the extra 10 to 15dB S/N ratio COFDM needs to overcome local impulse noise sources and deliver reliable residential service. The hard way? Selling all the receivers they can make? Pace pulled out of the market in the UK because there are so many players profit margins have shrunk. 25% of purchases of OTA COFDM receivers are people buying second, third and fourth receivers as gifts or for other TV sets. The test that China did were as near to 19.3 Mbps as possible for HD which is what a US 6 MHz channel can handle. Comparing a 8Mhz COFDM channel with data rate supplied by a 6Mhz 8VSB channel. That's an (item #1) Apples and Oranges comparison Bob. The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands of pre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference). China has thousand of pre-existing TV stations on the air, I don't get So, a quick search of the FCC's TV database indicates that their are 21,426 TV stations listed. your point. 6 MHz is a non issue when considering what is that best modulation. 8-VSB does not offer some advantage in a 6 MHz channel that A 6Mhz channel width has everything to do with and orderly (H)DTV transition in the US. Nearly every TV receiver ever sold in the US and Canada uses 6Mhz channel widths. Even the US cable TV channels are in 6 Mhz increments. Personally, I don't care what other countries use. And for the most part, they don't have ANY OTA (H)DTV broadcasts, because of items #1 and #2. COFDM does not. 8VSB in 8Mhz channel could go upwards of 30Mbits/sec without changing its S/N noise floor. Not so with COFDM, (see item #1). Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.) That did happen in 1999 and 2000 with a bad design for the first 2K DVB-T receivers in the UK. Couldn't have been too bad since they sold a lot of them and people still use them. And is still happening today. It's the parallel nature of COFDM carriers that works against it. It simultaneously xmits on hundreds if not thousands of carriers at the same time.. An impulse noise event of sufficient duration corrupts them all simultaneously. No way around that problem other than to xmit the same data patterns over and over again. COFDM's problem with reoccuring impulse noise especially problematic, since it also corrupts subsequent retransmissions. Later designs have eliminated impulse noise as a problem. I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a ^^^^^^^ you don't own a (H)DTV.. therefore it's Unlikely that you have an ATSC 8-VSB receiver. As for what you claim to have, list the make, model, and exact overall configuration for each transmitter and receiver. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you rigged results and are comparing apples to oranges AGAIN. fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM receiver has no problem with. Considering your COFDM receiver is probably right next to your transmitter you probably won't have a problem impulse noise. It's a S/N ratio thing. Increase the distance between the two (dropping S/N ratio) and CODFM's problem with impulse noise grows exponentially. ...Snip the rest of bob's rants.. |
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Mudd Bug wrote:
I guess me and the only other two people I know who have tried OTA are just unlucky, 100% are in your 25%. With your success rate at least one would be working just fine, but that is just not the case. A sample space of two is not statistically significant. Recall the gambler's fallacy. If you flip a fair coin twice and it comes up heads both times, that doesn't mean that it is more likely that it will come up tails the next time. If you can not understand this, then I strongly advise you not to go to a casino, as people who do not understand statistics are their lawful prey. Like I posted some months ago, A salesman at a high end store said that about half of their installs cannot receive OTA, and he look puzzled as to why. Anecdotal evidence is worthless without additional information, especially when you are reporting the statement of a third party that the figure is "about" such-and-such. In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of *all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each* of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer feedback is biased. Next, even if the 50% figure is accurate, the report omits such critical information as location. For example, a shop selling HDTV systems in Anchorage probably will have such a low rate; there isn't much HDTV in Anchorage, and the mountains and forests which surround Anchorage greatly impact TV receiption outside of the urban center. If you fail to consider all such factors, you're doing the same thing that Psycho Bob Miller the pathological liar does when he acts like New York City and its conditions are the thing that counts for the entire country. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
David wrote:
"BobT" wrote I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there are several of Bob's posts that made that statement. Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you. Bob, you should be really grateful [as we all should] that we have 8VSB HDTV. Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000, trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of lying, even then. http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/d...ly/000137.html This was a hearing to consider allowing COFDM as well as 8-VSB use in the US. My testimony was not to squash anything. It was to back up Sinclair's demonstration that showed conclusively that COFDM was far superior to 8-VSB. Sinclair was only asking for COFDM to be allowed so that it could be used in cities like New York and Baltimore where 8-VSB did not and still does not work. If you want to see how well COFDM works in New York with the simplest of antennas mobile try this video. www.viacel.com/bob.wmv If you have ever wrestled with a rooftop antenna or tried in vain to get an indoor Silver Sensor to work consider that one of those videos is working mobile with a 3 inch omni antenna stuck on the roof of this van. Testifying that one system is far better than the other is not an attempt to destroy. What has virtually destroyed our DTV transition in the US is 8-VSB. Others can read the above account of the testimony if they think anyone was accusing me of lying and then determine the veracity of David's comments themselves. If you can't find anything about such an accusation then I guess David is "lying". Maybe he thinks no one will read what he post. Bob Miller |
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the truth therefore he deserves no respect. This is one strange newsgroup and "truth" is not respected for sure. Some of you make endless assertions about how wonderful OTA HDTV is, but, when I read the posts on avsforum for my part of California served by Sacramento stations, I hear of problems with wind, with fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be expected. For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv. Most of you seem to have nothing to contribute but trash talk against Bob Miller. At least he is giving his version of the situation with OTA broadcasting and putting his neck out making predictions. I certainly enjoy hearing from him. Most of the rest of you should find a life, some of you, like vidguy7, should get back to the books or you'll never get out of Jr High. charlie |
Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of *all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each* of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer feedback is biased. In addition, different installers often end up with different results based on the skill of the installer. Here in the DC area, there are a few "name" installers of TV antennas, and one has gotten a horrible rep due to the fact that their installs don't work well for digital TV, yet other companies can come through afterward and fix things. So, if one installer is having a lot of bad luck receiving digital TV on their installs, that doesn't necessarily mean that digital TV is hard to receive...it might just mean the installer doesn't know what he is doing. -- Jeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert...rtTraining.gif |
Mark Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bob Miller wrote: Proper antenna systems with COFDM are small enough to fit in a cell phone. Then, why is it that in Tokyo, you are REQUIRED to have an outdoor rooftop-mounted directional yagi? Now Mark has gone off the deep end. REQUIRED rooftop antennas? Could you document that one Mark? Why is it that the BBC's own web page says that you need a rooftop-mounted antenna? Probably to cover their asses as many will need such an antenna. The fact remains that most do not. But if they do wouldn't you expect it? After all if you add up all the power that all 480 transmitters in use in the UK you come up with a TOTAL that is a FRACTION of ONE New York City transmitter with 8-VSB. Now I have to let you do the math yourself. Here is a list of those 480 transmitters and their ERP power levels. Add them up. http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm Otherwise Mark will tell you I am making this up. With transmitters as low a 3 Watts, yes I said 3 Watts, you might expect to need a rooftop antenna. The fact that most do not is amazing. And what is even more amazing is that that rooftop antenna that you need in the UK to receive that 3 Watt transmitters signal probably will not help you in Manhattan with 8-VSB even with 1,000,000 Watts of power. It just won't work. Now isn't that AMAZING!! And remember the 2K COFDM system used in the UK was the first and last use of such a system. Everyone since uses an 8K version of COFDM. The British just got carried away and couldn't wait. Still the 2K system they use is far better than 8-VSB even if it is outmoded. Bob Miller is a pathological liar. When he doesn't know the facts, he just makes things up. When he knows a limited set of facts, he puts them together into complete non-sequitors to create lies. Bob Miller is particularly fond of quoting articles that do not support his claims. He's been caught doing this numerous time with English language articles; he does it even more when there are foreign language articles with pictures. Unfortunately for Bob, people bother to read the articles and some even understand the foreign language in question. You have never "caught" me doing any such thing Mark. You just keep making unsubstantiated remarks with nothing to back it up. Show me an English article or even a Japanese one where I was misquoting PLEASE! Come on try to back up something. There is currently *no* cell phone that receives terrestrial broadcast COFDM based television. Nor are there any announced cell phones that do so. This is incredible. There are lots of announced COFDM terrestrial DTV cell phones, there are lots of working prototypes and by now there may be ones on the market in S. Korea. There are cell phones in Japan that receive *analog* television (just as poorly as the 1988 vintage Casio TV-400 series), and there are cell phones which receive digital video content from W-CDMA cell phone providers at 15fps. The latter may be terrestrial, and it may be digital, and (as it has audio and video) is arguably television; but it is most assuredly not the terrestrial digital television which is available experimentally in Tokyo. All true but there are also terrestrial DTV cell phones both in Europe, Japan and S. Korea. Also in the US where Crown Castle is testing them in Pittsburgh. DVB-H in Europe and Pittsburgh, ISDB-T in Japan and T-DMB in S. Korea are all cell phone COFDM DTV receiver realities. Even battery-powered portable digital TVs are at least two years in the future in Japan. Digital TV reception is a big problem. Even less than 2 miles from the transmitter with an outdoor antenna, frequent pixellation occurs. The service area doesn't even cover all of Tokyo municipality, much less any suburbs. The coverage is as this site says it is unless Mark can come up with some fantasy coverage map of his own or suggest why this site is in error. And the data at this site seems pretty convincing. Maybe Mark can explain this also. http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-3/news-e3.htm "...indicating that digital terrestrial sets are becoming an increasingly popular option in flat panel TVs." People are buying this sets with the "option" of picking one with a terrestrial receiver. The radical increase in sales is attributable to terrestrial DTV since satellite was available before and sales were flat. Another quote at 22/10/2004 at this site about cell phone receivers.... "Encoding was in MPEG4 AVC/ITU-T H.264 format, and observers used mobile phone type receivers developed by KDDI/Hitachi and portable receivers developed by Sony to receive broadcasts for portable terminals while in moving vehicles. Japanese broadcasters plan to launch commercial broadcasts aimed at portable terminals by the end of FY2005, using the format employed in this trial." There is also a picture of such a cell phone held up by a man who has a small form factor screen in his other hand which is also shown close up below that. Nor is the programming on terrestrial digital TV in Japan particularly interesting yet. The newspapers don't even bother to list it yet. Most Japanese who have HDTV subscribe to satellite, which *is* listed in the newspapers. Its one year old. How good was OTA HD in 1999 in the US after one year? None of this is to imply that COFDM is a worse choice than 8-VSB for Japan. Almost the entire population of Japan lives in densely populated cities, generally on the coastline. Their population is about half the US, and less than 30% of Japan's landmass (on four large islands and numerous small ones) is inhabitable. Mountainous terrain limits the broadcast area. Consequently, COFDM probably does work better there. It does!! Nevertheless, it is nonsense to imply, as pathological liar Bob Miller has done, that this renders COFDM "better" than 8-VSB for use in North America; nor does it create products that exist only in Bob Miler's psychotic imagination. No I never said that Japan's choice of COFDM was the main evidence that WE should also use COFDM. I said that the fact that most countries in the world have chosen COFDM lends credence to the fact that WE should also have chosen it. That includes China, Russia all of Europe, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Mark calls me a liar. One big lie he claims I tell is that the world will soon be awash in DTV receiving cell phones. Why he is in denial on this simple fact that is reported daily in some paper or TV news report and is all over the Internet I don't know. It is irrational. Yes there are analog TV receivers in cell phones and yes there are cell phones that do 15 fps over CDMA or other 3G cell phone networks. I am talking and Mark denies the existence of cell phones that will receive actual DTV transmissions with separate COFDM receivers on board. Here is some info you can check out. Maybe just this once Mark will check it out and show where I have gone wrong. There are three going on four DTV COFDM modulations that will do or are doing COFDM DTV OTA to cell phone receivers. T-DMB in S. Korea which uses 1.25 MHz of DAB spectrum to deliver mobile video to cell phones. The COFDM modulation used is Eureka 147. ISDB-T does COFDM using part of there spectrum for delivery to cell phones. That was documented above. DVB-H COFDM is used in Europe and prototypes are being tested and demonstrated and have been now for over a year. A test is ongoing in Pittsburgh as well by Crown Castle. This is a story about a Nokia COFDM DVB-H DTV cell phone receiver. http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm DVB-SCENE articles http://www.dvb.org/documents/newslet...11%20final.pdf "One terminal used in the pilot is the Nokia 7700 Media Device with a special prototype DVB-H receiver supplement. Philips is providing the second prototype terminal, this being a portable consumer device capable of receiving both the conventional DVB-T based TV programmes as well as the new DVB-H based services." "Dublin this year, explaining the motivation behind DVB-H development, Jukka Henriksson, chairman of the DVB-H project, put it simply: “TV is the biggest medium, and the last one missing from mobile phones.” In Europe, DVB-H is gravitating inexorably into mobile phones." "Chris Carter, marketing manager of satellite and terrestrial business in the set-top division at STMicroelectronics, has said, “Nothing stops US operators from embracing DVB-H.” Nothing, perhaps, but a lack of imagination in a country known the world over for ‘good old American ingenuity’." Of course we know that Crown Castle and Qualcomm have that ingenuity. Notice of Nokia and Crown Castle test in Pittsburg... http://press.nokia.com/PR/200411/970383_5.html "DVB-H technology is being piloted in the United States by Crown Castle and Nokia. The pilot has started in October in the Pittsburgh, PA, area and it aims to prove and test the feasibility of DVB-H technology and related service systems in the United States." http://press.nokia.com/PR/200411/966982_5.html "The pilot has started in October in the Pittsburgh, PA, area and it aims to prove and test the feasibility of DVB-H technology and related service systems in the United States. Later on, the pilot will be expanded to test consumer experiences and acceptance of mobile phone TV service." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6768 "Unless severe problems emerge in the trials now under way in the US and Europe, the momentum behind DVB-H seems unstoppable. Motorola, NEC, Siemens, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, O2 and NTL expect to kick off DVB-H services in 2006." I"n the UK, the mobile network O2 will start using DVB-H next year, despite having paid £4 billion for a 3G licence in April 2000. Nine transmitters near Oxford operated by NTL, the Australian-owned company that runs the UK’s independent TV transmitters, will broadcast 16 channels on a spare TV frequency." "From 2006, mobile phones will be offering crisp, clear TV pictures. But the pictures will not be coming over the cellphone network - they will be sent from transmitters already used for TV broadcasts. And this means a completely new breed of phones will be necessary to pick them up." http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1234000483023527/ http://www.edtnscandinavia.com/print...icle_path=/tek A lot of stuff here http://www.dailywireless.org/modules...ticle&sid=3048 "Korean vendors claim that they have leapfrogged Europe by completing T-DMB. It is designed to beam digital TV broadcasts to handheld devices — including mobile phones, PDAs and portable TV sets. " "Data-intensive, mobile applications may be better served by DTV or dedicated broadcast carriers (like Crown Castle's 1.4 GHz band), say industry observers. Crown Castle says it already has the spectrum it needs to provide DVB-H broadcasts. Last year, Crown Castle quietly won a government auction, paying $12 million for an exclusive terrestrial license to use 5 MHz of U.S. L-band spectrum which extends from 1440 - 1790 MHz. It was previously used for weather balloon and weather satellite down-linking. The company has deployed DVB-H technology in a three-site, single-frequency network trial in Pittsburgh, according to EE Times." http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/June2004/7916.htm http://broadcastengineering.com/news...on_dvbh_shows/ |
Charles Tieman wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin" I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the truth therefore he deserves no respect. This is one strange newsgroup and "truth" is not respected for sure. Some of you make endless assertions about how wonderful OTA HDTV is, but, when I read the posts on avsforum for my part of California served by Sacramento stations, I hear of problems with wind, with fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be expected. How good is your OTA on NTSC stations? For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv. So, for all of the "problems" you cite, you say that it works well most of the time. The fellow you are defending says it never works, it is fatally flawed and the modulation scheme is the reason that consumers aren't buying HD. Most of you seem to have nothing to contribute but trash talk against Bob Miller. At least he is giving his version of the situation with OTA broadcasting and putting his neck out making predictions. You should note that he has been 100% wrong in his predictions. He also argues frequenty that physics is wrong. I certainly enjoy hearing from him. Care to say why someone who has been caught out in lies as often as bob has been is worth listening to? -- Matthew I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one. Which one do you want? |
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net... Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000, trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of lying, even then. http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/d...ly/000137.html This was a hearing to consider allowing COFDM as well as 8-VSB use in the US. Which would have ruined our USA HDTV. "Honey, we have to buy another different receiver to watch that show.......". My testimony was not to squash anything. It was to line your pockets, incredibly obviously. It was to back up Sinclair's demonstration that showed conclusively that COFDM was far superior to 8-VSB. What a shame your cofdm plan lost so conclusively. Besides, everyone now at Sinclair considers you a crazy, ridiculous outcast. Why do you seem to get a kick out of being disgraced? Sinclair was only asking for COFDM to be allowed so that it could be used in cities like New York and Baltimore where 8-VSB did not and still does not work. Typical Bob Miller crazy lie. If you want to see how well COFDM works in New York with the simplest of antennas mobile try this video. What makes you think we care about your 2 year old video? If you have ever wrestled with a rooftop antenna or tried in vain to get an indoor Silver Sensor to work consider that one of those videos is working mobile with a 3 inch omni antenna stuck on the roof of this van. When you typed that, your wife was behind you screaming, "Turn that goddam computer off and look for a job!". Testifying that one system is far better than the other is not an attempt to destroy. Attempt to line your pockets at our expense? What has virtually destroyed our DTV transition in the US is 8-VSB. LOL Others can read the above account of the testimony if they think anyone was accusing me of lying and then determine the veracity of David's comments themselves. If you can't find anything about such an accusation then I guess David is "lying". Maybe he thinks no one will read what he post. Bob Miller You don't believe a single word you say. The only reason you post all these lies is to anger AVS members, because you correctly [for once] assume some of them attend this newsgroup. |
If you want to see how well COFDM works
in New York with the simplest of antennas mobile try this video. OR, if you want to see how miserable COFDM is, simply drive around N.Y. and other major cities with an XM radio. After a few days of that, FM will be looking REALLY good to you. Testifying that one system is far better than the other is not an attempt to destroy. What has virtually destroyed our DTV transition in the US is 8-VSB. No BOB, what ALMOST destroyed our digital transition was YOU and your kindred spirits at Sinclair. Stalling tactic after stalling tactic. Everyone new that Sinclair had ZERO interest in HD and was trying to do whatver they could to avoid converting their stations to HD. Who do you think you're kidding BOB? Don't you realize by now that we all have your number. You are despicable. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com