Bob Miller wrote:


All LG told us was that the 5th gen 8-VSB chip cost was not much more
than previous 4th gen chip cost period.


Really? What part of this quote from your email do you not understand:

Dear Bob Miller,

The price of the 5th generation VSB chip is almost same as that of the
4th generation. Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material
cost of STB. Major portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner.

The STB business division of LGE launched a few STB models in the USA
market but they retreated from the STB busniess due to little profit.

I will do my every best to help XXXXXXXXX or any manufacturers providing
STB to you using our 5th generation VSB chip enhancing the reception
performance of their STB.

Best regards.

XXXX XXXX XXXX
DTV Laboratory LGE,
tel : XX-X-XXXX-XXXX

I draw your attention to:

"Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material cost of STB. Major
portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner".

You are caught in yet another lie.

--
Matthew

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

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.

LG said nothing about cheapest just the same as previous 8-VSB
generations.


What is that in response to? It makes no sense.

The 8-VSB cost on the demod side is still $5.50 more in IP and $3.50
more in chip before we shop.


$5.50 on a $250 object?

LG was quite specific in their response to you. There is essntially no cost difference between demodulating COFDM and 8-VSB. The real cost
difference between an SD receiver and an HD receiver is in decoding the HD. Anyone who doesn't have an agenda can figure that out.

And that is what I responded. The decode side is the same. The demod
side has a difference of $9 before markup. And that is not for a $250
unit. That is for a $100 receiver that could be made right now with
COFDM or a $100 converter 8-VSB box that LG promises for 2007.

It is also $9 before markup on the internal receivers for TV sets per
mandate where a lot of other things get stripped away leaving that $9
before markup as a very big part of the total wholesale price. For
example if the COFDM receiver cost the same as 8-VSB before IP and basic
demod chip of say $50 then after you add in the $9 plus standard markup
the difference in receivers could be $50 compared to $68.

But I don't concede that all other things are equal. It seems that the
front end of an 8-VSB receiver is much more expensive than a COFDM one
just to get decent fixed reception.

Bob Miller

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:


All LG told us was that the 5th gen 8-VSB chip cost was not much more
than previous 4th gen chip cost period.


Really? What part of this quote from your email do you not understand:

Dear Bob Miller,

The price of the 5th generation VSB chip is almost same as that of the
4th generation. Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material
cost of STB. Major portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type
tuner.

The STB business division of LGE launched a few STB models in the USA
market but they retreated from the STB busniess due to little profit.

I will do my every best to help XXXXXXXXX or any manufacturers providing
STB to you using our 5th generation VSB chip enhancing the reception
performance of their STB.

Best regards.

XXXX XXXX XXXX
DTV Laboratory LGE,
tel : XX-X-XXXX-XXXX


I draw your attention to:

"Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material cost of STB. Major
portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner".

You are caught in yet another lie.

As I said it is obvious that the $9 pre markup difference between COFDM
and 8-VSB in the demod is not the only problem with making decent 8-VSB
receivers. The front end is a major cost item for 8-VSB so that the
demod chip can work even minimally in a fixed location. This unknown
major cost is not present with COFDM.

And it is the explanation of why LG can profitably make COFDM HD
receivers for a very small market like OZ and can not do so for the
biggest and richest market in the world the USA with 8-VSB.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller

In article ,
"Matthew Vaughan" writes:
"Tim Keating" wrote in message
...

Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
Another BM plant?

I haven't been to the UK in years, but on British TV broadcasts at least,
they still use "feet", "yards" and "miles" frequently.

I was just in the UK, and the speed limits are still in MPH.

John

Bob Miller wrote:


But I don't concede that all other things are equal. It seems that the
front end of an 8-VSB receiver is much more expensive than a COFDM one
just to get decent fixed reception.

That's not what LG said and you know it:

Dear Bob Miller,

The price of the 5th generation VSB chip is almost same as that of the
4th generation. Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material
cost of STB. Major portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner.

The STB business division of LGE launched a few STB models in the USA
market but they retreated from the STB busniess due to little profit.

I will do my every best to help XXXXXXXXX or any manufacturers providing
STB to you using our 5th generation VSB chip enhancing the reception
performance of their STB.

Best regards.

XXXX XXXX XXXX
DTV Laboratory LGE,
tel : XX-X-XXXX-XXXX

I draw your attention to:

"Major portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner".

BTW, thanks for posting that LG response. It will go a _LONG_ way
towards debunking your silly, uninformed pricing claims.

--
Matthew

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

Bob Miller wrote:

As I said it is obvious that the $9 pre markup difference between COFDM
and 8-VSB in the demod is not the only problem with making decent 8-VSB
receivers. The front end is a major cost item for 8-VSB so that the
demod chip can work even minimally in a fixed location. This unknown
major cost is not present with COFDM.

And it is the explanation of why LG can profitably make COFDM HD
receivers for a very small market like OZ and can not do so for the
biggest and richest market in the world the USA with 8-VSB.

Bob Miller

But Bob, I already have a "decent" (excellent, actually) 8-VSB receiver.
In fact, I have two, a Sony HD-200 and an LG-3200a. Why do you ignore
my posts when I point out the fact that these two work just fine?

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Bob Miller wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:


All LG told us was that the 5th gen 8-VSB chip cost was not much more
than previous 4th gen chip cost period.


Really? What part of this quote from your email do you not understand:

Dear Bob Miller,

The price of the 5th generation VSB chip is almost same as that of the
4th generation. Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material
cost of STB. Major portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type
tuner.

The STB business division of LGE launched a few STB models in the USA
market but they retreated from the STB busniess due to little profit.

I will do my every best to help XXXXXXXXX or any manufacturers providing
STB to you using our 5th generation VSB chip enhancing the reception
performance of their STB.

Best regards.

XXXX XXXX XXXX
DTV Laboratory LGE,
tel : XX-X-XXXX-XXXX



I draw your attention to:

"Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material cost of STB. Major
portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner".

You are caught in yet another lie.

As I said it is obvious that the $9 pre markup difference between COFDM
and 8-VSB in the demod is not the only problem with making decent 8-VSB
receivers. The front end is a major cost item for 8-VSB so that the
demod chip can work even minimally in a fixed location. This unknown
major cost is not present with COFDM.

And it is the explanation of why LG can profitably make COFDM HD
receivers for a very small market like OZ and can not do so for the
biggest and richest market in the world the USA with 8-VSB.

How in the world can you make such a claim, assuming a straight face,
under the LG quotation that you made available? Where does LG make
reference to:

"The front end is a major cost item for 8-VSB ..."

Matthew

--
Matthew

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

Tim Keating wrote:


Additionally... SFN (on channel repeaters) encounters significant
problems when you go over 38km main tower.. (Side lobes from repeater
signal and main transmission lobe start canceling out) In the US,
COFDM quickly run's out of available channels without a viable SFN.
(P.S. Neither the UK nor Oz currently use SFN COFDM repeater schemes.)

I believe you are wrong about OZ not using SFN's. They use them extensively.
http://www.broadcastaustralia.com.au/tv_single.html
http://www.harris.com/view_pressrele...kup&pr_id=1032

The UK cannot because in their eagerness to deploy COFDM they were
unwilling to wait for the 8K version to be in silicon. They are held
back by legacy 2K receivers which should be retired so that they can use
8K COFDM which would allow the use of SFN's.

Most receivers in the UK can handle 8K. It is just the first ones that
could not and they are the ones that had the biggest problem with
impulse noise to.

Bob Miller

Interesting article on the subject below.

http://www.electronicsweekly.co.uk/a...rch =&nPage=1

Seems the UK is thinking about going to 64QAM, 8K and replacing those
old 2K only receivers. Good idea. SFN will be possible and they could
also go for HD at the same time?

DVB-T 64QAM 8K is/was what I thought the US should have/ should go to.
Maybe the pressing need for broadcasters to go with MPEG4 will open a
door to a change just like is being proposed in the UK. A change for the
better.

Bob Miller


Stephen Neal wrote:


Nope - the UK suffered from "early adoption" (not sure about Aus - they went
at the same time so may also be 2k only?) - so we went with 2k rather than
8k DVB-T, which means our guard intervals are much smaller, making SFNs far
less feasible. Annoyingly there are only a small number of very early
ITV/ON digital receivers that can't cope with 8k - so we could move across.

However SFNs only offer advantages within areas with no regional
variations - so the BBC Mux 1 (which has regional and sub-regional
variations for BBC One in England, and BBC One/Two in the Nations), ITV/C4
Mux 2 (which has regional and sub-regional variations throughout the UK on
ITV1, and also for Channel Four advertising regions, and also carries S4C
Digidol in Wales), Five/SDN Mux A (Which has regional advertising on Five)
You wouldn't be able to run National SFNs for these three muxes - though
you could conceivably for the BBC Mux B (which has no regional variations)
and the Crown Castle Muxes C and D (again Nationwide)

SFNs COULD still have been useful for the regionally varying muxes, within
sub-regions, allowing for fill-in relays etc. So it is a pity we suffered by
going first.

AIUI Germany is using SFNs and multiple transmitters in Berlin. There they
are running with 7MHz channels - and quite high FECs (I think one of the
lower VHF muxes has more correction?) and low QAM levels - to keep the
system bomb-proof. I guess this is an advantage AND a disadvantage of the
DVB-T implementation - you can alter your QAM and FEC levels to cope with
differing transmission realities, rather than using a "one-size-fits-all"
approach?

As for the channel interference issues - AIUI in the UK they've tweaked the
frequencies of some DVB-T transmitters a bit to minimise this (employing an
offset) - and they have also slightly modified the filtering characteristics
of existing analogue transmitters in some areas to reduce interference with
DVB-T transmitters.

It'll be interesting to see how the regional switch-over goes in the UK -
the first regions are due to start switching in two or three years. A pilot
has started in Wales already - with analogue TV switched off in a village
there (I think it was served by an analogue relay?) The situation in the UK
is quite different to Berlin - as we have a large number of people still
using OTA analogue as their main source of broadcast TV.

Steve

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
Interesting article on the subject below.

http://www.electronicsweekly.co.uk/a...rch =&nPage=1

Seems the UK is thinking about going to 64QAM, 8K and replacing those old
2K only receivers. Good idea. SFN will be possible and they could also go
for HD at the same time?

SFNs would provide a benefit for regional fill-ins, and if national SFNs
were introduced for the nationwide muxes (B, C and D) then spectrum could be
used more efficiently. National SFNs couldn't be used for Muxes 1,2 and A as
they contain national, regional and sub-regional programme variations. (If
all regional services were forced onto a single mux then the non-regional
variations could be moved to national SFNs as well - though this would
require sharing of muxes - and stat mux pools - between broadcasters...)


DVB-T 64QAM 8K is/was what I thought the US should have/ should go to.
Maybe the pressing need for broadcasters to go with MPEG4 will open a door
to a change just like is being proposed in the UK. A change for the
better.

64QAM is currently causing problems with UK DVB-T transmitter levels +
reception systems - witness the complaints about the ITV/C4 and SDN/Five
64QAM muxes (2 and A) being less reliable and more difficult to receive than
the BBC/Crown Castle 16QAM muxes (1, B, C and D)

Once analogue has been switched off, then 64QAM may make sense at higher
transmitter levels of course.

If the 4 16QAM 18Mbs muxes moved to 64QAM 24Mbs then there would be an extra
6Mbs per mux freed up, a total of 24Mbs across all 4 muxes? If the Beeb
re-jigged their muxes they may well be able to launch a single 10-12Mbs HD
service (which would require MPEG4) without reducing their existing number
of MPEG2 services.

ITV/C4 - who are the other "big hitting" commercial broadcasters have
already filled their 64QAM 24Mbs mux (well ITV have with ITV1,ITV2,ITV3, ITV
News channel all squeezed into less than 12Mbs...) - so much so that ITV and
C4 have BOTH bought one each of the two extra slots on the Freeview 18Mbs
muxes - which have presumably been created by improving the quality of the
MPEG2 encoding of the existing 4 services to allow a reduction in data
rates - so a fifth video service can be carried in the 18Mbs mux with a
minimal reduction in picture quality (I hope...) The Crown Castle muxes (C
and D) are all coded and muxed just once in a single location, so upgrading
the MPEG2 encoding is quite easy to implement (you only need to replace one
set of coding and mux gear) - whereas doing the same to the BBC or ITV muxes
is much more expensive as there are encoders and muxing kit in every region!
(I think ITV are doing this to get ITV News back on DVB-T outside London,
where it was removed when ITV3 launched)

Steve



Nope - the UK suffered from "early adoption" (not sure about Aus - they
went at the same time so may also be 2k only?) - so we went with 2k
rather than 8k DVB-T, which means our guard intervals are much smaller,
making SFNs far less feasible. Annoyingly there are only a small number
of very early ITV/ON digital receivers that can't cope with 8k - so we
could move across.

However SFNs only offer advantages within areas with no regional
variations - so the BBC Mux 1 (which has regional and sub-regional
variations for BBC One in England, and BBC One/Two in the Nations),
ITV/C4 Mux 2 (which has regional and sub-regional variations throughout
the UK on ITV1, and also for Channel Four advertising regions, and also
carries S4C Digidol in Wales), Five/SDN Mux A (Which has regional
advertising on Five) You wouldn't be able to run National SFNs for these
three muxes - though you could conceivably for the BBC Mux B (which has
no regional variations) and the Crown Castle Muxes C and D (again
Nationwide)

SFNs COULD still have been useful for the regionally varying muxes,
within sub-regions, allowing for fill-in relays etc. So it is a pity we
suffered by going first.

AIUI Germany is using SFNs and multiple transmitters in Berlin. There
they are running with 7MHz channels - and quite high FECs (I think one of
the lower VHF muxes has more correction?) and low QAM levels - to keep
the system bomb-proof. I guess this is an advantage AND a disadvantage
of the DVB-T implementation - you can alter your QAM and FEC levels to
cope with differing transmission realities, rather than using a
"one-size-fits-all" approach?

As for the channel interference issues - AIUI in the UK they've tweaked
the frequencies of some DVB-T transmitters a bit to minimise this
(employing an offset) - and they have also slightly modified the
filtering characteristics of existing analogue transmitters in some areas
to reduce interference with DVB-T transmitters.

It'll be interesting to see how the regional switch-over goes in the UK -
the first regions are due to start switching in two or three years. A
pilot has started in Wales already - with analogue TV switched off in a
village there (I think it was served by an analogue relay?) The
situation in the UK is quite different to Berlin - as we have a large
number of people still using OTA analogue as their main source of
broadcast TV.

Steve