"Bob Miller" wrote in message thlink.net...
...
Sinclair was the only active broadcaster who stood up to Congress, the CEA,
the NAB and said it like it was....

You see statements like this don't do your position much good. Whether
deserved or not, Sinclair has managed to get a rather unfavorable
reputation for their performance. There is a long thread on one of the
AVS Forums complaining that in markets where Sinclair owns one or more
stations they are always lagging the other stations badly in getting
HDTV on the air. I certainly don't know independently if this charge
is accurate but there are many people from different locations who
indicate that this claim is valid. In my location they own the WB
affiliate which some complain is difficult to receive. I do receive it
and in the past month they have started to successfully broadcast some
HD content. They had some audio problems initially but that has been
corrected. So while they are lagging here I wouldn't bother to
complain about it (after all, it is the WB affiliate).

More disturbing though are the anonymous charges that upper management
is the culprit where there are issues. The charges are anonymous
because the people involved would undoubtedly lose their jobs. In any
case it leaves the impression that they have less interest than their
peers in contributing to the common good (which one might expect in
response to the free use of valuable spectrum). One might even infer
their position on COFDM was a ploy to avoid the investment they were
being required to make by the FCC.

David wrote:

COFDM recievers in Europe will be MORE expensive than our 8VSB models:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...es/6778743.htm


Quelle surprise!

Isn't it amazing that, when apples are compared to apples, we find that
the price of apples is the same.

BTW, the same link says:

"The channel still has some hurdles to clear. Sistla, the analyst,
estimates that cable TV companies need to spend about $1,000 per
subscriber to upgrade their equipment for HDTV -- costs the European
cable industry cannot afford".

So much for cable making OTA obsolete.

Matthew

--
http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/

Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

David wrote:

COFDM recievers in Europe will be MORE expensive than our 8VSB models:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...es/6778743.htm


Quelle surprise!

Isn't it amazing that, when apples are compared to apples, we find that
the price of apples is the same.

BTW, the same link says:

"The channel still has some hurdles to clear. Sistla, the analyst,
estimates that cable TV companies need to spend about $1,000 per
subscriber to upgrade their equipment for HDTV -- costs the European
cable industry cannot afford".

So much for cable making OTA obsolete.

Matthew

--
http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/

Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

"hasan schiers" wrote in message
...
OTA Digital/HD is just dandy in central Iowa. I'm 35 miles from the tower
site, with a medium sized Radio Shaft antenna at about 30'. Absolutely
perfect pix on every channel that is on. RCA DTC-100 receiver, no preamp,
50' RG-6u feedline. Signal levels (100 max):

CBS: 94
FOX: 93
NBC: 94
PBS: 84
ABC: not available yet, local station WOI is about as progressive as
neanderthals.


CBS's HD stuff looks downright spectacular! In fact this OTA channel
produces day in and day out, the best HDTV pix that I see, and I have
DirecTV HD package.
The DirecTV stuff at its best is excellent, but still a notch below OTA.

So much for "OTA sucks by design". Methinks this is just attention seeking
behavior, and I only post a response in order to help prevent baseless
propaganda against OTA HD/Digital from gaining a foothold among those
easily
taken in by a person with an obvious agenda. (and way too much time on
their
hands)

...hasan, N0AN

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
s.com...
Bob Miller wrote:

In your case it works. You have no dropouts at all. That is wonderful.
And
if no one had any problems with ATSC you would be right. But they do.
In
a
high percentage of cases ATSC does not work as well as NTSC does. \

Please cite some facts to back up this statement. The combined history
of the poster's to this newsgroup put lie to that statement. Virtually
everyone who has tried to receive ATSC and reported here has had
excellent results.

The few who have not had success also report having very poor NTSC
reception. Other reports of poor reception come from cases of
co-location of high power NTSC and low power ATSC broadcasts or other
reasons that have more to do with transition than modulation.

Even your poster boy for ATSC failure, Mark Shubin, reports that he has
received Philadelphia ATSC in his Manhattan apartment.

OTA DTV seems to work pretty well here, too, though we don't have much yet.
In Gainesville we can get Fox out of Ocala (40 or so miles) cleanly with
cheap rabbit ears, while their analog broadcast is snowy unless you have a
mast and a nice antenna. Hopefully we will get some HD broadcasts soon,
other than what we get by sat.

Leonard Caillouet

"hasan schiers" wrote in message
...
OTA Digital/HD is just dandy in central Iowa. I'm 35 miles from the tower
site, with a medium sized Radio Shaft antenna at about 30'. Absolutely
perfect pix on every channel that is on. RCA DTC-100 receiver, no preamp,
50' RG-6u feedline. Signal levels (100 max):

CBS: 94
FOX: 93
NBC: 94
PBS: 84
ABC: not available yet, local station WOI is about as progressive as
neanderthals.


CBS's HD stuff looks downright spectacular! In fact this OTA channel
produces day in and day out, the best HDTV pix that I see, and I have
DirecTV HD package.
The DirecTV stuff at its best is excellent, but still a notch below OTA.

So much for "OTA sucks by design". Methinks this is just attention seeking
behavior, and I only post a response in order to help prevent baseless
propaganda against OTA HD/Digital from gaining a foothold among those
easily
taken in by a person with an obvious agenda. (and way too much time on
their
hands)

...hasan, N0AN

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
s.com...
Bob Miller wrote:

In your case it works. You have no dropouts at all. That is wonderful.
And
if no one had any problems with ATSC you would be right. But they do.
In
a
high percentage of cases ATSC does not work as well as NTSC does. \

Please cite some facts to back up this statement. The combined history
of the poster's to this newsgroup put lie to that statement. Virtually
everyone who has tried to receive ATSC and reported here has had
excellent results.

The few who have not had success also report having very poor NTSC
reception. Other reports of poor reception come from cases of
co-location of high power NTSC and low power ATSC broadcasts or other
reasons that have more to do with transition than modulation.

Even your poster boy for ATSC failure, Mark Shubin, reports that he has
received Philadelphia ATSC in his Manhattan apartment.

OTA DTV seems to work pretty well here, too, though we don't have much yet.
In Gainesville we can get Fox out of Ocala (40 or so miles) cleanly with
cheap rabbit ears, while their analog broadcast is snowy unless you have a
mast and a nice antenna. Hopefully we will get some HD broadcasts soon,
other than what we get by sat.

Leonard Caillouet

"Steve Bryan" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
thlink.net...

... In a
high percentage of cases ATSC does not work as well as NTSC does. This
was
documented by the MSTV test of 2000. ...

This may be part of the difference of opinion. If things were much
worse three years ago I wouldn't know much about it. I read some of
the HDTV newa but was unwilling to buy until a software based tuner
card was introduced, which was not many months ago. Also there is no
question that in many cases broadcasters were dragging their feet over
spending all the necessary money. But what you have not responded to
is that the transition has occurred. The consumers aren't there yet
but the stations are. Indeed how can one expect individuals (except
early adopters) to spend the money until the stations are on the air.

Over a thousand stations (currently 1011) are broadcasting DTV in over
200 markets. (There are only about 1,700 total see www.nab.org). It
really isn't a question of prediction any more. It's done. As others
have pointed out OTA is the only way people will be getting the
multitude of HD programs. Cable and satellite are both loathe to
provide the needed bandwidth for the local affiliates of all the
networks (there are 5 that already offer HDTV and Fox has committed to
it for next season).

That leaves the question of the consumers. What will they do or not do
which will constitute the disaster you so often predict? First, for
the 70% that are served by cable the transition is essentially
assured. You can turn off all those NTSC channels and the cable viewer
will not notice. There will be pushing and shoving over the insistence
of cable companies that they have the right to eviscerate the signal
from local network affiliates to keep their costs down. But the FCC
will get some form of these local stations on all cable systems.

I always have said that HD will do well on cable and satellite. I am only
talking about OTA broadcasting and the disaster it IS! Not predicting a
disaster at all. I am talking of the disaster OTA TV/DTV is because of the
modulation 8-VSB. HDTV is a resolution. There will be lots of it on wireless
networks, cable, Satellite, VDSL ect. Especially if a lot of people keep
buying 1080i HDTV sets to watch 480i DVDs.

OTA free TV/DTV is at risk because no one is or will buy the OTA receivers.
They will wait for cable satellite and watch DVDs in the meantime.

We are 7 1/2 years into the DTV transition and ignorance, lies and outright
fraud have delayed it and will continue to delay it. OTA may just die.
Especially when you hear the FCC Chairman Powell say exactly that. He was
not mincing words. Before that he was heard to say that since few were
watching OTA TV/DTV and the number of viewers was declining "What are we
protecting?'



So there is that 30% that steadfastly refuses to engage in commerce
with a cable TV company. Will at least half of them manage to
successfully overcome that 8-VSB "obstacle" some time in the next
three years? Wouldn't that provide the needed 85% to allow the turn
off of NTSC and the resulting cold shower for the stragglers? If the
needed STB is not less than $100 it would defy all previous history of
digital electronics. I don't think it will go that way at all. I think
that by the time the Super Bowl rolls around on CBS this season there
will be millions who will see OTA HDTV for the first time at a
friend's house. If the viewing results are anything like the first few
HDTV games this year on CBS, ESPN, and ABC we will see HDTV moving out
from early adopters to the general public (or at least sports fans).
At that point I think a combination of OTA and satellite will explode
in the market.

"Steve Bryan" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
thlink.net...

... In a
high percentage of cases ATSC does not work as well as NTSC does. This
was
documented by the MSTV test of 2000. ...

This may be part of the difference of opinion. If things were much
worse three years ago I wouldn't know much about it. I read some of
the HDTV newa but was unwilling to buy until a software based tuner
card was introduced, which was not many months ago. Also there is no
question that in many cases broadcasters were dragging their feet over
spending all the necessary money. But what you have not responded to
is that the transition has occurred. The consumers aren't there yet
but the stations are. Indeed how can one expect individuals (except
early adopters) to spend the money until the stations are on the air.

Over a thousand stations (currently 1011) are broadcasting DTV in over
200 markets. (There are only about 1,700 total see www.nab.org). It
really isn't a question of prediction any more. It's done. As others
have pointed out OTA is the only way people will be getting the
multitude of HD programs. Cable and satellite are both loathe to
provide the needed bandwidth for the local affiliates of all the
networks (there are 5 that already offer HDTV and Fox has committed to
it for next season).

That leaves the question of the consumers. What will they do or not do
which will constitute the disaster you so often predict? First, for
the 70% that are served by cable the transition is essentially
assured. You can turn off all those NTSC channels and the cable viewer
will not notice. There will be pushing and shoving over the insistence
of cable companies that they have the right to eviscerate the signal
from local network affiliates to keep their costs down. But the FCC
will get some form of these local stations on all cable systems.

I always have said that HD will do well on cable and satellite. I am only
talking about OTA broadcasting and the disaster it IS! Not predicting a
disaster at all. I am talking of the disaster OTA TV/DTV is because of the
modulation 8-VSB. HDTV is a resolution. There will be lots of it on wireless
networks, cable, Satellite, VDSL ect. Especially if a lot of people keep
buying 1080i HDTV sets to watch 480i DVDs.

OTA free TV/DTV is at risk because no one is or will buy the OTA receivers.
They will wait for cable satellite and watch DVDs in the meantime.

We are 7 1/2 years into the DTV transition and ignorance, lies and outright
fraud have delayed it and will continue to delay it. OTA may just die.
Especially when you hear the FCC Chairman Powell say exactly that. He was
not mincing words. Before that he was heard to say that since few were
watching OTA TV/DTV and the number of viewers was declining "What are we
protecting?'



So there is that 30% that steadfastly refuses to engage in commerce
with a cable TV company. Will at least half of them manage to
successfully overcome that 8-VSB "obstacle" some time in the next
three years? Wouldn't that provide the needed 85% to allow the turn
off of NTSC and the resulting cold shower for the stragglers? If the
needed STB is not less than $100 it would defy all previous history of
digital electronics. I don't think it will go that way at all. I think
that by the time the Super Bowl rolls around on CBS this season there
will be millions who will see OTA HDTV for the first time at a
friend's house. If the viewing results are anything like the first few
HDTV games this year on CBS, ESPN, and ABC we will see HDTV moving out
from early adopters to the general public (or at least sports fans).
At that point I think a combination of OTA and satellite will explode
in the market.

Those are satellite receivers and not COFDM.


"David" wrote in message
...
COFDM recievers in Europe will be MORE expensive than our 8VSB models:


http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...es/6778743.htm


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"darius" wrote in message
. ..
Bob Miller wrote in
...

Studies were done by Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, S. Korean
broadcasters, Australia, Taiwan, Germany, Finland, France, the
Netherlands and the results were all the same, COFDM was far better.

The cost of switching from 8-VSB to COFDM is minimal. Basically you
need a COFDM modulator at around $50,000. Broadcasters if given the
choice would all switch in a moment. Remember that Sinclair, Pappas,
Granite, ABC and NBC openly supported a switch to COFDM. The only
active supporter of 8-VSB was CBS, a case of corporate senility. The
rest were cowed and intimidated into support of 8-VSB by
Congressional threats.


Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say COFDM is definitely superior
and
is backed by ABC et al, how did we get to this point? Who were
pushing
the FCC to push 8-VSB? Qui bono?

There were not that many. Wiley (former FCC chairman, now hired gun),
CBS's
Joe Flarety, the CEA guy Shapiro and a Mat Miller from a company called
Nextwave taken over by a Canadian company. The main money was coming
from
S.
Korea's LG Industries who own Zenith and Zenith owns the Intellectual
Property rights, the royalty rights. They claimed to their stockholders
that
royalties would bring in $100 million each year from the USA. It should
since they are
charging ten time what DVB-T COFDM charges for royalties.

The real problem was a lack of support from those who knew better and
from
the broadcasters who seem to only be interested in Must Carry on cable.
8-VSB cost them less in broadcasting cost while it cost the consumer
more
in
receiver and antenna cost but broadcasters are not thinking about the
OTA
consumer. They forgot him a long time ago. They are basically content
providers to cable companies.

It was insane to watch a few companies, a few high powered lobbyist and
organizations with little engineering expertise residing in those who
were
in control dictate by intimidation and outright lies the DTV modulation
of
the US.

Who was pushing the FCC? No one. The push was coming from Congress in
threats to a quivering broadcast group. The FCC just went with the tide.
Did
what they were told to do IMO. The power is in controlling Congress and
we
know how that is done.

What shocked me was how scared broadcasters were and how neutral those
in
the engineering companies who know better were because, hey, they can
sell
8-VSB transmitters just as well as COFDM ones. No need to ruffle any
feathers on either side. There were few on the COFDM side. The DVB COFDM
group in Europe has many members who were on the 8-VSB camp so they said
and
did nothing to support COFDM.

Sinclair was the only active broadcaster who stood up to Congress, the
CEA,
the NAB and said it like it was. Nokia sent a letter to Congress
supporting
COFDM and Pace actually was a witness before Congress for COFDM. That
was
it.

Those are satellite receivers and not COFDM.


"David" wrote in message
...
COFDM recievers in Europe will be MORE expensive than our 8VSB models:


http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...es/6778743.htm


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"darius" wrote in message
. ..
Bob Miller wrote in
...

Studies were done by Argentina, Brazil, Hong Kong, S. Korean
broadcasters, Australia, Taiwan, Germany, Finland, France, the
Netherlands and the results were all the same, COFDM was far better.

The cost of switching from 8-VSB to COFDM is minimal. Basically you
need a COFDM modulator at around $50,000. Broadcasters if given the
choice would all switch in a moment. Remember that Sinclair, Pappas,
Granite, ABC and NBC openly supported a switch to COFDM. The only
active supporter of 8-VSB was CBS, a case of corporate senility. The
rest were cowed and intimidated into support of 8-VSB by
Congressional threats.


Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say COFDM is definitely superior
and
is backed by ABC et al, how did we get to this point? Who were
pushing
the FCC to push 8-VSB? Qui bono?

There were not that many. Wiley (former FCC chairman, now hired gun),
CBS's
Joe Flarety, the CEA guy Shapiro and a Mat Miller from a company called
Nextwave taken over by a Canadian company. The main money was coming
from
S.
Korea's LG Industries who own Zenith and Zenith owns the Intellectual
Property rights, the royalty rights. They claimed to their stockholders
that
royalties would bring in $100 million each year from the USA. It should
since they are
charging ten time what DVB-T COFDM charges for royalties.

The real problem was a lack of support from those who knew better and
from
the broadcasters who seem to only be interested in Must Carry on cable.
8-VSB cost them less in broadcasting cost while it cost the consumer
more
in
receiver and antenna cost but broadcasters are not thinking about the
OTA
consumer. They forgot him a long time ago. They are basically content
providers to cable companies.

It was insane to watch a few companies, a few high powered lobbyist and
organizations with little engineering expertise residing in those who
were
in control dictate by intimidation and outright lies the DTV modulation
of
the US.

Who was pushing the FCC? No one. The push was coming from Congress in
threats to a quivering broadcast group. The FCC just went with the tide.
Did
what they were told to do IMO. The power is in controlling Congress and
we
know how that is done.

What shocked me was how scared broadcasters were and how neutral those
in
the engineering companies who know better were because, hey, they can
sell
8-VSB transmitters just as well as COFDM ones. No need to ruffle any
feathers on either side. There were few on the COFDM side. The DVB COFDM
group in Europe has many members who were on the 8-VSB camp so they said
and
did nothing to support COFDM.

Sinclair was the only active broadcaster who stood up to Congress, the
CEA,
the NAB and said it like it was. Nokia sent a letter to Congress
supporting
COFDM and Pace actually was a witness before Congress for COFDM. That
was
it.

Sinclair is a true broadcaster. They think like broadcasters. They are the
ones who first raised the alarm about the problems with 8-VSB. This alarm
caused other countries who had already officially chosen 8-VSB as their
countries standard to rethink and test COFDM and 8-VSB. Australia and Taiwan
then changed there countries modulation to COFDM. S. Korea refused to listen
to their broadcasters and test. The broadcasters tested on their own and
pleaded for COFDM.

Brazil which was already being counted, along with Taiwan and Australia, by
the CEA and ATSC as being in the 8-VSB camp decided to test and came out for
either ISDB-T or DVB-T, both COFDM and they rejected 8-VSB. Argentina where
in the absence of the President (trip to Europe) a broadcast coupe chose
8-VSB, the decision was reversed to the current situation of no decision.

AVSFORUM deletes any post that would defend Sinclair except post by Mark
Aitken of Sinclair. They then do a job on him as they have for years.
Compared to Sinclair most of the rest of today's broadcasters are wimps.

In the end COFDM in one of its variants will be used in the US, its benefits
recognized and 8-VSB will be retired. Sinclair will be vindicated and
everyone will wonder how this all could have happened.

Broadcasters
"Steve Bryan" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
thlink.net...
...
Sinclair was the only active broadcaster who stood up to Congress, the
CEA,
the NAB and said it like it was....

You see statements like this don't do your position much good. Whether
deserved or not, Sinclair has managed to get a rather unfavorable
reputation for their performance. There is a long thread on one of the
AVS Forums complaining that in markets where Sinclair owns one or more
stations they are always lagging the other stations badly in getting
HDTV on the air. I certainly don't know independently if this charge
is accurate but there are many people from different locations who
indicate that this claim is valid. In my location they own the WB
affiliate which some complain is difficult to receive. I do receive it
and in the past month they have started to successfully broadcast some
HD content. They had some audio problems initially but that has been
corrected. So while they are lagging here I wouldn't bother to
complain about it (after all, it is the WB affiliate).

More disturbing though are the anonymous charges that upper management
is the culprit where there are issues. The charges are anonymous
because the people involved would undoubtedly lose their jobs. In any
case it leaves the impression that they have less interest than their
peers in contributing to the common good (which one might expect in
response to the free use of valuable spectrum). One might even infer
their position on COFDM was a ploy to avoid the investment they were
being required to make by the FCC.