|
|
|
darius wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in ink.net... When I say that OTA sucks by design this would include a number of items. If broadcasters had truly been interested in designing a great broadcast system to replace NTSC they would have done a number of things. [long explanation snipped] I don't know enough about the technical issues to evaluate your claims. The difficulties people are having getting ATSC reception suggest the FCC could have done much better. The problem is, aren't we pretty much stuck with what we have now? Wouldn't it be prohibitively to change the modulation scheme now? Who besides you is pushing COFDM Seems to me it's a lost cause. We are in the process of changing our modulation system right now from NTSC to ATSC. Never heard anyone suggest it would be too expensive. Maybe we should stay with NTSC forever because any change in modulation will be too expensive. What "prohibitively expensive" would be I don't know. I think someone decided that staying with NTSC had its own expense associated with it. For one thing OTA TV (NTSC) was/is dying. Fewer people use it every day. We are down to less than 15% who depend on OTA TV or DTV. The expense of continuing down this path to ZERO is that you are using the very valuable TV spectrum inefficiently at best and when you get to ZERO you are simple wasting it. Also if you could deliver 5 channels instead of one or deliver an HDTV signal instead of SDTV there is value there in either more quantity or better quality. So the choice was made to go to digital and change the modulation. If after changing the modulation you discover that nothing has in fact changed maybe you should consider other options. That is if the number of people using OTA TV and DTV continue to decline toward ZERO what do you do? Just let it happen? Ignore it? Well the FCC is not ignoring it. First they try a mandate. Maybe the mandate will be ruled out. The CEA is taking the FCC to court. Even if the FCC wins it doesn't matter. Even if every TV set is made digital by law you can't force people to use the OTA tuner. You can't force them to put up an antenna. So what do you do? If we follow you logic and say it is "prohibitively expensive" I guess we can never do anything. Maybe we have to wait for 50 years like we did for NTSC before we change our modulation again. Or maybe we wait a few more years for the disaster to sink in further or for some politician to see that there is political hay to be harvested in making the comment that "hey no one is using that TV spectrum so lets sell it to someone who has some use for it". In Germany they decided to start their digital transition last November in Berlin and they turned off all analog this last month, August. This is the greater Berlin area, a big hunk of Germany. You know how many people called in to complain or ask for instructions or for any other reason associated with the analog turnoff so far? Around 300. This will happen soon here and someone is going to ask we are wasting all this TV/DTV spectrum if no one is watching it. One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly successful. The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a better modulation. Either way you get a new modulation. The cost of changing now will always be far cheaper than waiting. Especially if you consider all the hours of waste while the spectrum is being used so inefficiently. |
darius wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in ink.net... When I say that OTA sucks by design this would include a number of items. If broadcasters had truly been interested in designing a great broadcast system to replace NTSC they would have done a number of things. [long explanation snipped] I don't know enough about the technical issues to evaluate your claims. The difficulties people are having getting ATSC reception suggest the FCC could have done much better. The problem is, aren't we pretty much stuck with what we have now? Wouldn't it be prohibitively to change the modulation scheme now? Who besides you is pushing COFDM Seems to me it's a lost cause. We are in the process of changing our modulation system right now from NTSC to ATSC. Never heard anyone suggest it would be too expensive. Maybe we should stay with NTSC forever because any change in modulation will be too expensive. What "prohibitively expensive" would be I don't know. I think someone decided that staying with NTSC had its own expense associated with it. For one thing OTA TV (NTSC) was/is dying. Fewer people use it every day. We are down to less than 15% who depend on OTA TV or DTV. The expense of continuing down this path to ZERO is that you are using the very valuable TV spectrum inefficiently at best and when you get to ZERO you are simple wasting it. Also if you could deliver 5 channels instead of one or deliver an HDTV signal instead of SDTV there is value there in either more quantity or better quality. So the choice was made to go to digital and change the modulation. If after changing the modulation you discover that nothing has in fact changed maybe you should consider other options. That is if the number of people using OTA TV and DTV continue to decline toward ZERO what do you do? Just let it happen? Ignore it? Well the FCC is not ignoring it. First they try a mandate. Maybe the mandate will be ruled out. The CEA is taking the FCC to court. Even if the FCC wins it doesn't matter. Even if every TV set is made digital by law you can't force people to use the OTA tuner. You can't force them to put up an antenna. So what do you do? If we follow you logic and say it is "prohibitively expensive" I guess we can never do anything. Maybe we have to wait for 50 years like we did for NTSC before we change our modulation again. Or maybe we wait a few more years for the disaster to sink in further or for some politician to see that there is political hay to be harvested in making the comment that "hey no one is using that TV spectrum so lets sell it to someone who has some use for it". In Germany they decided to start their digital transition last November in Berlin and they turned off all analog this last month, August. This is the greater Berlin area, a big hunk of Germany. You know how many people called in to complain or ask for instructions or for any other reason associated with the analog turnoff so far? Around 300. This will happen soon here and someone is going to ask we are wasting all this TV/DTV spectrum if no one is watching it. One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly successful. The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a better modulation. Either way you get a new modulation. The cost of changing now will always be far cheaper than waiting. Especially if you consider all the hours of waste while the spectrum is being used so inefficiently. |
darius wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in ... One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly successful. But is anyone wildly successful with HDTV? No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a better modulation. Either way you get a new modulation. Like I said, I just don't know enough about the technical issues to know whether COFDM would be better for HDTV, not just DTV. But I know the political reality is all the major stations in my area are already broadcasting (H)DTV, so I assume they've already invested a lot in equipment already. I don't think they'll look kindly on a modulation scheme change at this stage. Has (H)DTV been a failure in the US? I don't know. Do we have any comprehensive study, something besides anecdotal evidence? In 2000 at the Congressional hearings HDTV was received at a higher data rate, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB, at 19.34 Mbps and the COFDM antenna was a bow tie from Radio Shack while the 8-VSB was a Silver Sensor. The COFDM bow tie antenna was mobile the 8-vSB was fixed. 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. |
darius wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in ... One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly successful. But is anyone wildly successful with HDTV? No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a better modulation. Either way you get a new modulation. Like I said, I just don't know enough about the technical issues to know whether COFDM would be better for HDTV, not just DTV. But I know the political reality is all the major stations in my area are already broadcasting (H)DTV, so I assume they've already invested a lot in equipment already. I don't think they'll look kindly on a modulation scheme change at this stage. Has (H)DTV been a failure in the US? I don't know. Do we have any comprehensive study, something besides anecdotal evidence? In 2000 at the Congressional hearings HDTV was received at a higher data rate, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB, at 19.34 Mbps and the COFDM antenna was a bow tie from Radio Shack while the 8-VSB was a Silver Sensor. The COFDM bow tie antenna was mobile the 8-vSB was fixed. 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. |
"Bob Miller" wrote in message ... : : No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. ================= Really? What world are you living in? ==================== : |
"Bob Miller" wrote in message ... : : No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. ================= Really? What world are you living in? ==================== : |
OTA is not a flop in Albuquerque. "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... darius wrote: Bob Miller wrote in ... One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly successful. But is anyone wildly successful with HDTV? No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a better modulation. Either way you get a new modulation. Like I said, I just don't know enough about the technical issues to know whether COFDM would be better for HDTV, not just DTV. But I know the political reality is all the major stations in my area are already broadcasting (H)DTV, so I assume they've already invested a lot in equipment already. I don't think they'll look kindly on a modulation scheme change at this stage. Has (H)DTV been a failure in the US? I don't know. Do we have any comprehensive study, something besides anecdotal evidence? In 2000 at the Congressional hearings HDTV was received at a higher data rate, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB, at 19.34 Mbps and the COFDM antenna was a bow tie from Radio Shack while the 8-VSB was a Silver Sensor. The COFDM bow tie antenna was mobile the 8-vSB was fixed. 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. |
OTA is not a flop in Albuquerque. "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... darius wrote: Bob Miller wrote in ... One solution might be to change the modulation if there is reason to believe that a better one would be more successful. Another modulation is being used in Berlin and the UK and in both cases they are wildly successful. But is anyone wildly successful with HDTV? No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. The other possibility is just to wait long enough for total failure and sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. Then those high bidders will use the spectrum for other purposes or for the same purpose with a better modulation. Either way you get a new modulation. Like I said, I just don't know enough about the technical issues to know whether COFDM would be better for HDTV, not just DTV. But I know the political reality is all the major stations in my area are already broadcasting (H)DTV, so I assume they've already invested a lot in equipment already. I don't think they'll look kindly on a modulation scheme change at this stage. Has (H)DTV been a failure in the US? I don't know. Do we have any comprehensive study, something besides anecdotal evidence? In 2000 at the Congressional hearings HDTV was received at a higher data rate, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB, at 19.34 Mbps and the COFDM antenna was a bow tie from Radio Shack while the 8-VSB was a Silver Sensor. The COFDM bow tie antenna was mobile the 8-vSB was fixed. 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. |
In article , bearman wrote:
OTA is not a flop in Albuquerque. "Bob Miller" ranted in message ... No so far HDTV OTA is a flop, everywhere. Nor in Los Angeles. But it is not yet a huge success either. As with all new technologies, there is a chicken/egg situation where there is less incentive for the broadcasters to put out HD (or DTV) product while there are few viewers to see it, and they are waiting for the broadcasters. But I think the situation is changing, perhaps rapidly. Last weekend, I saw a display at the local Circuit City with four different models of OTA HDTV receivers. They were all in the $300 range, if my memory serves. This reminds me of the situation where VCRs were only being purchased by 'early adopters' and video 'buffs', and were quite expensive. As the economics of scale (and the amortization of development costs) brought down the prices of the product, more and more people dipped into the pool, found it good, and showed it to friends... and a successful market grew out of it. Maybe the best thing we can do to help HDTV along is to invite bunches of people over to watch Monday Night Football? :-) My gut feeling is that the breakthrough price for OTA receivers as a separate component would be about $200. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com