Bob Miller wrote:
L David Matheny wrote:

No. I don't really care how it's done, as long as it works. I haven't
read enough theory about COFDM or 8-VSB to choose, and so far
the FCC hasn't asked for my opinion. I'm just saying that unless TV
programming is suddenly going to get a lot more intelligent (which I
doubt) or the Internet is going to take over, OTA needs to be viable.


OTA needs to be viable, I agree.

It is not viable today with 8-VSB and over a very short period of time
it will become far less viable.


Given your track record on predictions (100% wrong) I would say it might
be time to invest on OTA broadcast companies.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Bob Miller wrote:
wrote:

"OTA needs to be viable"

It will be once they cut off analog transmission. Most Americans just
don't take digital OTA seriously now, but it will be as serious as a
heart attack when they unplug analog. I think even LG will then
reconsider their departure from making OTA tuners.
IB

The problem is that the politicians can't take the risk of turning off
analog. Even Barton will come to his senses when confronted with
reality. They will have to do something about receivers and or
modulation before anything else. At the moment they are listening to
anyone who will tell them what they want to here. That would be RCA at
the moment.

RCA says no problem we have cheap HD tv sets that work well. What a
surprise they are in for.


Congress has already set the GAO on the task of figuring out the cost of
subsidizing the digital conversion. Esitmates in the $10 billion range
are being bandied about.

They aren't wasting a single cycle on the modulation scheme.


--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Bob Miller wrote:

The chips we are comparing are for demodulation and the COFDM chip was
fully compliant with all DVB-T so that includes HD.

So what? Being able to demodulate the data is the cheapest part of an HD
receiver. You should know this since you quoted an LG response to your
question about fifth generation receivers. That response clearly stated
that the demodulation scheme was far cheaper than the HD decoding subsystem.

Keep on lying, bob. You will be called on it _every_ time.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

U.K. Reception problems?
Problems with Freeview? a.. Interference? There's nothing more
annoying than interference, pixelation, or the Freeview red dot when
watching your favourite show. Here are a few bits of advice on improving
your signal:
a.. Upgrade your aerial - This is always the best bet. Seek
professional advice and get the best that you can afford. More details can
be found elsewhere on this page.





More at:
http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/tvfaq.html

Our U.S. 8VSB system really is excellent, having practically *zero* reported
issues with impulse noise/interference.

David wrote:
U.K. Reception problems?
Problems with Freeview? a.. Interference? There's nothing more
annoying than interference, pixelation, or the Freeview red dot when
watching your favourite show. Here are a few bits of advice on improving
your signal:
a.. Upgrade your aerial - This is always the best bet. Seek
professional advice and get the best that you can afford. More details can
be found elsewhere on this page.





More at:
http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/tvfaq.html

Our U.S. 8VSB system really is excellent, having practically *zero* reported
issues with impulse noise/interference.

However, bob, the one trick pony, claims that all of the 8-VSB reception
problems are multi-path. He's gone so far to say that improving an
antenna system will not improve ATSC reception.

--
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
nk.net...
...
And I predict that these new age broadcaster will align themselves with
broadband Internet seamlessly both tirelessly and fixed in your living
room.
...

Though I have always been enamored with anything that is broadcast
over-the-air (radio or television), I can imagine myself being attracted to
television over the Internet. Why? Because maybe some clever entrepreneurs
will realize that there are many people who, like me, what to choose the
television stations a la carte. As I've said before on this newsgroup, I
currently buy cable TV from Comcast. I don't like paying for many channels
I never watch. (I watch at most 10 or 15 channels out of several hundred.)

I would pay for TV over the Internet if:

1) I could pay for only those channels I want
2) The quality of the channels was as good as that from any other medium
3) Some of the channels were high definition
4) The total cost to me was less than what I now pay for Comcast

Neil
Salem, MA USA

"Phil Ross" wrote in message
m...
Why are you so hell bet on trading some 8VSB multi-path problems for COFDM
impulse noise problems? Oh, that right, you don't watch (H)DTV, so it
doesn't matter to you. Get over it. COFDM just ain't gonna happen here for
commercial OTA television. I'm pretty happy with the current state of the
art, and it is just going to get better, so buzz off, will ya?

LOL, I read that UK forum for about 30 seconds and saw this:

"info to stop interference?

In my house we have 4 stbs they are all connected to one airel via a four
way booster; the signal strengh is very good, the power levels are good, but
we still get a lot of iterference. This happens whenever the washing machine
clicks to another part of its cycle, whenever a mobile phone ring,(this is
upstairs only.) So could somone pleeease help, any surrgestions would be
greatly appreciated, thanks"



Anyway, bob can't line his mobile datacasting pockets with 8vsb... which is
such a shame.

Neil - Salem, MA USA ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
I would pay for TV over the Internet if:

1) I could pay for only those channels I want
2) The quality of the channels was as good as that from any other medium
3) Some of the channels were high definition
4) The total cost to me was less than what I now pay for Comcast

Although you might win because Comcast is incredibly overpriced, in general
you can't cherry-pick channels and save money. This is because the content
owners bundle channels that reduce the price of many channels to clost to
"cost". If they were sold separately, they might cost $2/each (similar to
ESPN) instead of the $0.20/each they cost in the bundle.

This has to do with the fact that advertising cost is calculated based on
both actual ratings and prospective ratings, so if a channel is only in 1M
homes, it won't be able to charge much for advertising unless it has Super
Bowl-like ratings for shows. Channels that are available to 80M (or more)
homes can charge more for advertising.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...Workaholic.gif

There is no way in hell Congress is going to spend 10 billion dollars
on a digital transmission subsidy. I would guess 2 billion at most.
They want to make money selling off the dead airspace, not lose it to
people who can afford to buy new TVs or cheap adapters. The adapter
boxes can be $80. each or less. 2 billion buys allot of them. Even
most people on welfare have cable and don't use their OTA analog
receivers anyway.

IB