|
|
OTA sucks by design
All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap.
The concept of putting HDTV over the area just like they are doing reg TV is lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years. The frequency ranges for HDTV OTA are far different than regular TV. Translated: they don't carry as far and the signal strength wanders. For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice. For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV decoder. I talked with an engineer at one of the local TV stations. They know the OTA HDTV idea sucks. They don't have the funding to do it right with enough power and there are so very few people that can even get it, they don't have any $ backing to be able to make it any better. HDTV cable or sat for the majority of us is the only way we are going to get reliable HD signals. Now only if Skinamax would jump on the HDTV bandwagon, we could at least watch our softcore porn in HDTV. Tell your cable or sat rep you want more HDTV channels and to dump the CSPAN and other crud that 99% of us don't care about if they need more bandwidth. end rant |
Corey wrote:
"Bulk Daddy" wrote in message .6... All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap. The concept of putting HDTV over the area just like they are doing reg TV is lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years. The frequency ranges for HDTV OTA are far different than regular TV. Translated: they don't carry as far and the signal strength wanders. For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice. For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV decoder. I talked with an engineer at one of the local TV stations. They know the OTA HDTV idea sucks. They don't have the funding to do it right with enough power and there are so very few people that can even get it, they don't have any $ backing to be able to make it any better. HDTV cable or sat for the majority of us is the only way we are going to get reliable HD signals. Now only if Skinamax would jump on the HDTV bandwagon, we could at least watch our softcore porn in HDTV. Tell your cable or sat rep you want more HDTV channels and to dump the CSPAN and other crud that 99% of us don't care about if they need more bandwidth. end rant Corey Says- The Broadcasters in your area suck. I get HD just fine. If you are able to get your fuzzy ghost plagued analogue you should be able to get a flawless digital signal. Unless broadcasters in your area aren't interested in progress, or don't know their heads from a hole in the ground. They have 2 or so more years to get their act together, or someone else will. end. If what you say were true it would not be so bad but it is simple and emphatically not true. Getting a good NTSC signal is no guarantee that you will get any DTV signal at all. Here in NYC Mark Schubin has a standing invitation to all to come to his apartment where he gets good NTSC signals from 7 or 9 stations using a bow tie antenna on top of his TV set. He gets two DTV stations one with the antenna laying on the floor in a particular position and another station with the antenna on a bookcase near the ceiling. This was before 9/11. This is true across the country. Good NTSC does not mean good DTV. And bad NTSC does not mean you can't get DTV. I now can get CBS, Fox and a Spanish station (with numerous dropouts) with a directional antenna aimed at the Empire State Building two miles away direct line of sight. I can get no reasonable rreception of analog on any channel. Neither predicts the other. With COFDM I can get the reception from downtown Manhattan from a transmitter at 400 ft. at 100 Watts of power NON line of sight. And I can get it with a three inch antenna while driving at 70 miles an hour on the FDR. Quite a difference. |
Bulk Daddy wrote:
All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap. The concept of putting HDTV over the area just like they are doing reg TV is lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years. The frequency ranges for HDTV OTA are far different than regular TV. Translated: they don't carry as far and the signal strength wanders. For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice. For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV decoder. I talked with an engineer at one of the local TV stations. They know the OTA HDTV idea sucks. They don't have the funding to do it right with enough power and there are so very few people that can even get it, they don't have any $ backing to be able to make it any better. HDTV cable or sat for the majority of us is the only way we are going to get reliable HD signals. Now only if Skinamax would jump on the HDTV bandwagon, we could at least watch our softcore porn in HDTV. Tell your cable or sat rep you want more HDTV channels and to dump the CSPAN and other crud that 99% of us don't care about if they need more bandwidth. end rant I agree that OTA DTV in the US does "suck by design". That is a most accurate statement made on the subject. Wish I had said it. |
With COFDM I can get the reception from downtown Manhattan from a
transmitter at 400 ft. at 100 Watts of power NON line of sight. And I can get it with a three inch antenna while driving at 70 miles an hour on the FDR. Quite a difference. Well with shortwave I can pick up a signal from across the world... but like your COFDM it doesnt do me any good because it isn't HDTV. |
I wouldn't give up too easily on OTA. 5 days ago,
I couldn't get so much as a meter reading on any DTV station. Now, I get CBS, NBC, FOX locked in solid. All I did was change antennas and experiment with different orientations. I'm about 50 mile from the xmitters, and they are low power. Jeff |
"Bulk Daddy" wrote in message:
All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap. Hmm, I'm 30 miles from NYC, behind two mountain ranges. I can't get analog OTA worth anything, way too much ghosting. With a RCA DTC-100 and a $15 Radio Shack indoor antenna, I get _perfect_ OTA HDTV reception.Tell us what kind of equipment you're using? Lotsa people here can help you. I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting years ago seems to be just terrible. Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself. |
Bulk Daddy wrote in message . 6...
"Corey" wrote in m: Corey Says- The Broadcasters in your area suck. I get HD just fine. If you are able to get your fuzzy ghost plagued analogue you should be able to get a flawless digital signal. Unless broadcasters in your area aren't interested in progress, or don't know their heads from a hole in the ground. They have 2 or so more years to get their act together, or someone else will. end. I agree. Someone has done do. The sat and cable providers. Keep in mind that local providers make most of their mula from ads. A chunk of them would drop their analog OTA except they are required to do it. When (hmmm) more stations go HDTV, you and others will buy in because you get more choice/service. Will you stick to OTA for your nice HDTV set as your only choice when you can get 20+ channels in HDTV via sat or cable? OTA is a stop gap for a few until this happens. Local broadcasters know this. Only in the center of major cities does it pay for them to do good OTA. I really am glad your one of the few that gets good OTA from all of your local broadcasters. BTW: In no way does reception of the analogue signal mean that a person can get a flawless digital signal. I agree that for many people the preferred solution is cable. I don't agree that sat without OTA is a solution at all. The sats simply do not have the bandwidth to carry all, or even most of the HDTV locals. For the indefinite future, sat will provide the traditional cable channels, with OTA used for the locals. The only thing that can change that is either newer technology or more sats, neither of which is on the horizon. |
lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations
must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years. Why don't you people become educated? The government requirements are for DIGITAL TV, not HDTV. Get your facts straight. For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice. For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV decoder. Then I guess you're just **** out of luck. How about moving out of the boonies and into civilization? |
David ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting years ago seems to be just terrible. Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself. Before I put up my antenna for HD, I kept hearing about how bad multipath could be, and living in a typical suburb with lots of flat surfaces (houses) and moving ones (trees) nearby, I expected no decent reception. Like almost everyone else that tries it, though, once I get a signal of more than about 50 on the meter, I get no dropouts at all, ever. The best examples here locally are WB, PAX and one of the local PBS stations: Network Ch Call Distance Azimuth ERP kW WB 50 WBDC 18.6 142 2450 WB 51 WBDC-DT 18.6 142 125 PAX 66 WPXW 27.1 190 3400 PAX 43 WPXW-DT 27.1 190 90 PBS 26 WETA 16.3 151 2290 PBS 27 WETA-DT 20.4 163 50 All are upper UHF (WB and PBS have side-by-side channels), and in the cases of WB and PAX, the analog is a snowy mess, while the digital is clean and clear at 2.5% to 5% of the power of the analog. PBS is OK on analog, but perfect with their miniscule 50kW on digital. The other thing to note is that my antenna points at 151 because that's where most of the towers are grouped. Thus, the PBS digital is off-axis and still fine. PAX shows just how good digital transmission can be even with a very directional antenna at 39° off axis. -- Jeff Rife | "You may find this strange, but I think body 301-916-8131 | piercing is a good thing. It gives us a | quick way to tell that people ain't right, | just by lookin' at 'em." | -- Hank Hill, "King of the Hill" |
Read this about the antenna:
I 've seen many posts recently about the best OTA tuner (Sam 151 versus Zenith 420). Hopefully my evaluation will answer some questions. I think it's important to say that my criteria was a receiver that could pull in stations over 60 miles away. I also have a Wineguard 8200P (deep fringe...also when you compare this antenna with the best CM has to offer you'll see on the specs that the WG has higher gain on all channels) with pre-amp and rotor. First, I hooked up the Zenith and was only able to receive one HD station which is 40 miles away. That's it! Next I hooked up the Sammy and was able to pull in and lock on two additional channels both with a distance of over 60 miles. The day was partly overcast and about 80 degrees and dry. The rotor was tuned to the exact azimuth needed to receive each channel for both receivers. Also interesting is the signal meter on the zenith didn't even move when trying to tune in the 60 mile plus stations. I live in Jackson Michigan and was able to pick up Flint, Michigan, Lansing, Michigan and Toledo Ohio. I couldn't hit Detroit with either receiver because of huge trees in front of my antenna to the East. The one thing I did like about the Zenith is the fact that it allowed another antenna connector for anolog..... A couple other points the WG is to large to ship UPS so you're better off finding a dealer nearby to purchase. I paid $204.00 dollars. Also, I found the Winegard pre-amp AP-8275 the highest gain pre-amp available (compare against Channel Master). I have no affiliation with Winegard or Samsung just reporting my experience. Needless to say I took the Zenith back to Circuit City. Hope this helps someone out their in the deep fringe. By the way HD reception is unbelieveable on my 65 Inch Hitachi. "Bulk Daddy" wrote in message .6... All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap. The concept of putting HDTV over the area just like they are doing reg TV is lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years. The frequency ranges for HDTV OTA are far different than regular TV. Translated: they don't carry as far and the signal strength wanders. For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice. For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV decoder. I talked with an engineer at one of the local TV stations. They know the OTA HDTV idea sucks. They don't have the funding to do it right with enough power and there are so very few people that can even get it, they don't have any $ backing to be able to make it any better. HDTV cable or sat for the majority of us is the only way we are going to get reliable HD signals. Now only if Skinamax would jump on the HDTV bandwagon, we could at least watch our softcore porn in HDTV. Tell your cable or sat rep you want more HDTV channels and to dump the CSPAN and other crud that 99% of us don't care about if they need more bandwidth. end rant |
I live 60 miles southwest of St. Louis, I'm using the antenna with amp that
has been on my 40 ft pole for some ten years. Hooked up the new set, and it gets all the dtv channels including the low power/low budget farthest away East St. Louis ch 46. Go figure! -- Jim Padgett St. Clair, MO. Larry Bud wrote in message om... lame at best and driven by government requirements that all stations must be broadcasting HDTV in the next few years. Why don't you people become educated? The government requirements are for DIGITAL TV, not HDTV. Get your facts straight. For the very luck few inside a city with all of the HDTV OTA broadcasting from the same location/direction, at higher power, it's free and nice. For all the rest of us we can't get a reliable signal for all the stations even with a good antenna, adjusted just so, with a $300 OTV decoder. Then I guess you're just **** out of luck. How about moving out of the boonies and into civilization? |
"Chet Hayes" wrote in message om... Bulk Daddy wrote in message . 6... "Corey" wrote in m: Corey Says- The Broadcasters in your area suck. I get HD just fine. If you are able to get your fuzzy ghost plagued analogue you should be able to get a flawless digital signal. Unless broadcasters in your area aren't interested in progress, or don't know their heads from a hole in the ground. They have 2 or so more years to get their act together, or someone else will. end. I agree. Someone has done do. The sat and cable providers. Keep in mind that local providers make most of their mula from ads. A chunk of them would drop their analog OTA except they are required to do it. When (hmmm) more stations go HDTV, you and others will buy in because you get more choice/service. Will you stick to OTA for your nice HDTV set as your only choice when you can get 20+ channels in HDTV via sat or cable? OTA is a stop gap for a few until this happens. Local broadcasters know this. Only in the center of major cities does it pay for them to do good OTA. I really am glad your one of the few that gets good OTA from all of your local broadcasters. BTW: In no way does reception of the analogue signal mean that a person can get a flawless digital signal. Corey Says- Maybe but my analogue is substandard and my digital is excellent. end. I agree that for many people the preferred solution is cable. I don't agree that sat without OTA is a solution at all. The sats simply do not have the bandwidth to carry all, or even most of the HDTV locals. For the indefinite future, sat will provide the traditional cable channels, with OTA used for the locals. The only thing that can change that is either newer technology or more sats, neither of which is on the horizon. Corey Says- I like satellite better than cable. It is less expensive. Cable has to much noise. Cable is different from one location to another. The HD package I have with Directv (about 4 channels) is worth it. I can also get HD on 1 HBO and 1 Showtime channel. The only good thing about cable is the fact that you can run it to every room in the house. And if your really sick the toilet room. end. |
In article ,
Bob Miller wrote: Here in NYC Mark Schubin has a standing invitation to all to come to his apartment where he gets good NTSC signals from 7 or 9 stations using a bow tie antenna on top of his TV set. He gets two DTV stations one with the antenna laying on the floor in a particular position and another station with the antenna on a bookcase near the ceiling. This was before 9/11. How can this have any current relevance? The transmition towers for all the DTV stations were being deployed on the twin towers and the entire enterprise was set back for years which has to be the least significant outcome of that event. Two years ago the situation here in the Twin Cities was far less favorable. Now there are ten digital stations on the air. Five carry HD content and it appears that three more will sometime in the next year. I live in a suburb and can receive all of it with an antenna in my attic. I haven't gone in to details and it isn't all perfect but the detractors don't have a leg to stand on based on this admittedly anecdotal evidence. Don't be too casual about the antenna. I couldn't bring myself to put one on the roof for asthetic reasons plus I was fairly certain my wife wouldn't put up with it. But that attic antenna was carefully aimed and tweaked to get the best signal. One evening of tedious work and now I can watch any of ten digital stations and it does a good job for the NTSC stations also. I think it is worth suggesting that in some locations there might be some rather diffident efforts being made to justify those generous licenses that have been granted. Get on the phone, write them letters and e-mail. Maybe it's even worth a call or message to the FCC. This stuff works and it isn't just better than the NTSC signals, the resolution of the HD programs blows away what you can get with DVD's and it's free! |
Chet Hayes wrote:
I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. 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. |
Chet Hayes wrote: Even then, it only gives you the 4 major networks, plus some random PBS. Cable can provide all that plus the 100 other channels that people are watching. I see cable as the major delivery vehicle, with OTA being used by sat customers for the locals. In this area the cable company recommends OTA for HDTV. They provide no HDTV whatsoever and no plans in the foreseeable future. If your objective is for HDTV and the cable company does not provide HDTV then the number of cable viewers is irrelevant. The area is great for OTA reception and is easy to receive all the major networks plus several minor ones; not a surprise that the cable company is reluctant to add HDTV to their offering. Besides I can get two of each network affiliate. The news programming is unique and many times sports programming. When its game time, the same network may be offering different games form each affiliate. |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com...
Chet Hayes wrote: I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement. I see lots of reference to numbers in the range of these from JD Powers: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_p...066711,00.html where cable has 60% market share, sat 17%. I would think that would leave OTA at about 23%, which sounds reasonable. And whatever the OTA only market share is, it will only decrease over time. On consumers wish list, clearly more channels than offered by OTA is a top priority. |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in
s.com: According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew Ah Matthew, you are always entertaining by saying something like studies say... Then saying to look it up for ourselves. OK, I looked it up. Here are a couple links: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1544&sequence=4 Says that in 1998(!) that 67% of households had cable TV service. http://www.charleston.net/stories/09...07tvdeth.shtml Says that today 86% of Americans have cable or sat. According to studies frequently discussed here, Matthew makes up 73% of the figures he uses ;-) |
Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in s.com: According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. OK, I looked it up. Here are a couple links: Meaningless links for the stat that is being talked about. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1544&sequence=4 Says that in 1998(!) that 67% of households had cable TV service. http://www.charleston.net/stories/09...07tvdeth.shtml Says that today 86% of Americans have cable or sat. Right, and before I got my DirecTiVo, I had satellite, but one of my two TVs had OTA antenna as its only input. This is the stat that is important... not how many houses have cable, but how many TVs have OTA as their input. Likewise, before I could easily record locals off satellite (again, DirecTiVo), I had 3 VCRs which had only OTA for input. Sure, they fed a TV that had satellite as one of its inputs, but at any given moment, it was far more likely that I was watching something recorded from OTA than live from satellite. DirecTiVo has changed that, but then recording HD on my PC from OTA has changed it back a lot. -- Jeff Rife | 301-916-8131 | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...eriHatcher.gif |
Gary H wrote:
With COFDM I can get the reception from downtown Manhattan from a transmitter at 400 ft. at 100 Watts of power NON line of sight. And I can get it with a three inch antenna while driving at 70 miles an hour on the FDR. Quite a difference. Well with shortwave I can pick up a signal from across the world... but like your COFDM it doesnt do me any good because it isn't HDTV. How do you know if it is HD or not? It technically could be. |
David wrote:
"Bulk Daddy" wrote in message: All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap. Hmm, I'm 30 miles from NYC, behind two mountain ranges. I can't get analog OTA worth anything, way too much ghosting. With a RCA DTC-100 and a $15 Radio Shack indoor antenna, I get _perfect_ OTA HDTV reception.Tell us what kind of equipment you're using? Lotsa people here can help you. I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting years ago seems to be just terrible. Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself. The British system is ancient COFDM 2K and yet they are outselling 8-VSB receivers 1000 to one in a market 1/16th the size. They only cover part of the country with transmitter powers that are minuscule compared to the power in the US. They are using 2K instead of 8K COFDM. Still they are selling receivers at the rate of 50,000 a week. There is a forum that gives a very good overall look at the UK at http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3 In a market that will see 3 million receivers by the end of this year and which only started broadcasting last November 1st there are hundreds of complaints? Amazing. However of the 7000 + post on uk,tch.digital-tv I do not see that many complaints. What I see are people inquiring about all kinds of problems including old receivers from a number of years ago. No general problem and very low prices for receivers. |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Chet Hayes wrote: I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew I know because I have three of them that have not been plugged in for at least the last five years. How exactly did they count these TV sets? |
Bob Miller wrote:
Gary H wrote: Well with shortwave I can pick up a signal from across the world... but like your COFDM it doesnt do me any good because it isn't HDTV. How do you know if it is HD or not? It technically could be. The question is: Is it HD? The question is not: Can it be HD? Answer the question. 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. |
Chet Hayes wrote:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com... Chet Hayes wrote: I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement. Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households: From FCC-01-389A1.doc "A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes exceeding $75,000". 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. |
Jeff Rife wrote in
: Meaningless links for the stat that is being talked about. Right, and before I got my DirecTiVo, I had satellite, but one of my two TVs had OTA antenna as its only input. This is the stat that is important... not how many houses have cable, but how many TVs have OTA as their input. Likewise, before I could easily record locals off satellite (again, DirecTiVo), I had 3 VCRs which had only OTA for input. Sure, they fed a TV that had satellite as one of its inputs, but at any given moment, it was far more likely that I was watching something recorded from OTA than live from satellite. DirecTiVo has changed that, but then recording HD on my PC from OTA has changed it back a lot. The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation. The point is not does OTA work for some people. Of course it does for for some folks. I could easily take three of the four TV's in my house and disconnect them from the cable and say "see, this what I did in my one house out of the millions of homes". Or I could go to radioshack with my ENG friends and create something that works over my home electrical wiring with my VCR as the input. Who cares? Just because I can get it to work does not mean it is a good design. The point is that Most people (no, not everyone in every case) are going to want more channels of HD and not just a few like we have now AND a lot of people can't easily get all of the HD OTA channels in their area, even if they can get regular broadcast stuff. People can put up all of the theory they want. OTA is a bad design that services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good reliable OTA HD signals. And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD. And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels. So I get HBO HD, and all the locals and HD Discovery channels. I do have to pay $8 a month for the digital cable box connection. So even if I could get good OTA HD, why would I bother when I can get all the stuff available? And for those that are doing and getting good OTA HD, we really are glad that your are satisfied with what you get. |
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
... There is a forum that gives a very good overall look at the UK at http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3 Thanks, Bob. The "Digital Spy" forum is very interesting. I did a forum search there for "interference" and saw 147 postings/complaints since last February. The forum members cite many interference sources, including: Washing machines, motorbikes, streetlights, trucks, thermostats, fish tank heaters, halogen lamps, CCTV cameras, refrigerators, loose connections of plugs into sockets, sunlamps, etc. etc. I've never seen a posting anywhere where 8VSB exhibited these kind of problems, even at very low signal strengths. That English COFDM system is the same one you were trying to shove down AVS forum members throats... what a joke. |
Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation. Yes, they are. You ridiculed someone for "making up statistics". Then, you went out and found some statistics that were unrelated to the "made-up" statistics in an attempt to further ridicule the person for not providing the information themselves. I notice that you have not responded to the post what that same person you ridiculed *has* provided those very statistics, and they show exactly what was claimed. The point is not does OTA work for some people. Right. The point is that OTA works for a *lot* of people, even the ones who also have other sources of signal (like cable, satellite, etc.), and it does so on a daily basis. The point is that Most people (no, not everyone in every case) are going to want more channels of HD and not just a few like we have now AND a lot of people can't easily get all of the HD OTA channels in their area, even if they can get regular broadcast stuff. Agreed, since only about 1% to 2% of all homes have even *one* ATSC receiver. Most of the people who can easily get analog OTA don't have a hope in hell of getting ATSC right now because they don't have a receiver. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, anyone who has seriously tried to receive ATSC can do so quite easily *if* they already can receive analog on similar channels with any amount of clarity. Some of the exceptions are totally unrelated to ATSC, like the Chicago channel 2 analog/channel 3 digital fiasco: the digital channel is being overloaded from the adjacent and colocated analog channel. On the other hand, if people are willing to accept snow-laden analog and call that "reception", it's quite likely that they won't get digital, since it is an all or nothing affair, although I have several channels that are unwatchable on analog yet their digital channels are clear as a bell...one even has adjacent channels for analog and digital. And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD. OTA analog doesn't give you HBO, ESPN, TBS, A&E, etc. What's your point? And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels. Today, they might be willing to do this to suck you in. Since MSOs are being charged extra for Discovery HD Theater and ESPN-HD, it's only a matter of time before they start passing that on to you. So I get HBO HD, and all the locals and HD Discovery channels. I do have to pay $8 a month for the digital cable box connection. So even if I could get good OTA HD, why would I bother when I can get all the stuff available? Because they already seem to be overcharging people? Sure, you get the HD for that $8/month, but there are a lot of other people with digital cable who don't, and their $8 is subsidizing you. -- Jeff Rife | 301-916-8131 | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Evaluation.jpg |
Jeff Rife wrote in
: Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation. Yes, they are. You ridiculed someone for "making up statistics". Then, you went out and found some statistics that were unrelated to the "made-up" statistics in an attempt to further ridicule the person for not providing the information themselves. I notice that you have not responded to the post what that same person you ridiculed *has* provided those very statistics, and they show exactly what was claimed. Two different ways of looking at the numbers. I was looking at the number of homes and a few others were looking at the number of TV's. Matthew responded with source info on the way he was figuring up things and so thanks to him and no need to follow up. The point is not does OTA work for some people. Right. The point is that OTA works for a *lot* of people, even the ones who also have other sources of signal (like cable, satellite, etc.), and it does so on a daily basis. Agree with you on that. But the FCC could have set some guidelines for broadcast strength or have used technology that would allow the signal to carry as far as a simular strength reg broadcast signal. On the other hand, if people are willing to accept snow-laden analog and call that "reception", it's quite likely that they won't get digital, since it is an all or nothing affair, although I have several channels that are unwatchable on analog yet their digital channels are clear as a bell...one even has adjacent channels for analog and digital. We are splitting hairs here. One's definition of 'good' analog signal will vary quite a bit. I grant you that someone watching a 70% analog fuzz picture should not expect a good signal. HDTV signals are a higher frequency and so you have to push more power, in some cases a huge amount more power for them to reach as far as a standard TV signal. Even then the higher freq stuff just does not travel as far over hills, etc. And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD. OTA analog doesn't give you HBO, ESPN, TBS, A&E, etc. What's your point? The point is that some OTA broadcasters are not going to toss more money than they have to in to HD OTA, because they know that their customers that spend the bucks for an HD able set are in most cases going to want these other services and can get them plus their local stuff that way. And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels. Today, they might be willing to do this to suck you in. Since MSOs are being charged extra for Discovery HD Theater and ESPN-HD, it's only a matter of time before they start passing that on to you. So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to keep prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then they could jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I can't get but one good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles away. If they really wanted me and a lot of other people as an OTA customer, they would start tossing up more towers, higher power, and each station would work togeather so their OTA antennas were in the same direction. If not, then they only care about reaching a subset of their customers. Keep in mind that in a way we all pay for OTA. We pay by watching more commercials and the other ways that local stations have to earn money to pay for this stuff. I'm also thinking that a lot of those OTA only folks just don't have the funds to pay $300 for an OTA HDTV decoder. OTA is great for some people. For a lot of others it just plain sucks by design. |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com...
Chet Hayes wrote: "Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com... Chet Hayes wrote: I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement. Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households: From FCC-01-389A1.doc "A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes exceeding $75,000". Matthew OK, take your pick. Counting homes, OTA is 14 to 20%. Counting TV sets, its, 30%. Either way, it's not 40%, it's a minority and as Michael Powell himself pointed out, clearly declining over time. |
In article ,
Bulk Daddy wrote: OTA is a bad design that services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good reliable OTA HD signals. This is the quote with which I am having trouble. You are basing this on what? What we get here on newsgroups and the web are interesting anecdotes. The impression I get is that ATSC reception is already better than the NTSC reception it is replacing. This is with many stations using provisional towers and lower power levels than they will eventually use. Also there is a new generation of 8-VSB demodulation silicon that is distinctly superior to what was available when I got my ATSC PCI receiver card (check the web site: www.linxelectronics.com). I also have an NTSC receiver card and should mention that since putting up a ChannelMaster antenna in the attic of my suburban home I get pretty good reception with it also. I'm not in a fringe location and can't meaningfully speculate about people in that situation. But others who are have reported better reception with ATSC than existing NTSC reception. My suspicion is that before long cable companies will have to market against a rising perception of their diminishing worth. Their initial justification was to compensate for lousy NTSC reception which will be ancient history as the transition to ATSC is completed. Their dead last position in customer service (how many industries have to be compelled by law to answer customer calls?). The premium channels that have diluted their offerings year after year (I remember when the movie selection on HBO was excellent). The original programming on HBO is a big exception but can be purchased for much less in DVD's by the patient consumer. If I could cherry pick just HBO that would be a great temptation but minimum price pushes $30/month and I'm sure that would just be camel's nose in the tent. With five channels already providing an increasing amount of HD programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free. |
Bulk Daddy wrote in message
Keep in mind that in a way we all pay for OTA. We pay by watching more commercials and the other ways that local stations have to earn money to pay for this stuff. Well, I see just as many, or more commercials on most cable channels. You get to pay twice (once monthly fee, once through commercials) for cable! Excepting HBO and like, of course, but those stations run $10/mo or so. I'm also thinking that a lot of those OTA only folks just don't have the funds to pay $300 for an OTA HDTV decoder. These will drop rapidly in cost, and become integrated into sets before too much longer. Long term, the cost of tuners will not be an issue. Although it most certainly is today. OTA is great for some people. For a lot of others it just plain sucks by design. Agreed. Everyone's needs are different. It's pretty silly to assume that what's true for you (or me) can be applied to everyone. For people outside of reasonable distances from the towers, OTA probably does suck. Cable/Satellite clearly has content advantages, but I know plenty of people (esp single people living alone) for whom $600/year just isn't worth it for TV. |
darius wrote in news:70097052995.8554256396.37877
@news.verizon.net: Bulk Daddy wrote in .6... So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to keep prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then they could jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I can't get but one good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles away. so in the end, doesn't it really just come down to the fact that you can't get OTA so you think it sucks? Well I have directv and when are they going to have locals (i.e., broadcast networks) in HD? Not for a lonnnggg time. They have to do compression and stat muxing just for the few HD channels they have. My cable co. is waiting for who knows what. ASTC works NOW for me and goodness, it's free too. (Ironically, NSTC reception is unwatchable in my house.) And so for you, HD directv sucks by design. There is no "technology" reason that you can not be able to get ABC, NBC, etc with your locals in HDTV. Hell you have to pay directTV and then screw with an OTA HD antenna. That really bites. And so I will admit that the suck factor increases for myself and others who can't get the magic combination of multiple channels of reliable OTA, and for those that get it, it is a wonderful thing. So yes, if you get OTA then for you it does not suck and it is wonderful. Still, today with current technology, a LOT more people should be able to get OTA that can not. I speak for a large group of people that will never get a bunch of OTA signals. And it is in part because they did not design it for good/extended coverage. And so yes, for a bunch of us it really does suck by design. There are a lot of technologies like spread spectrum or a bunch of others along with improved support from the FCC for higher power levels that would have made OTA HDTV much better. I'm amazed at how many folks that are getting good HD OTA that take offense at these statements about OTA. We don't want you to like your OTA any less. We really are happy that you get good HD pictures. HDTV is great stuff. You get it for free and you should enjoy the hell out of it. Also think of all of the people in apartments or in neighborhoods that can't put an antenna on roof. A lot of them can get regular broadcasts but not OTA HD. It really does suck that new technology like HD is not available to them by way of free OTA. Regular OTA TV broadcasts will go through things like walls better than an OTA HD broadcast. A local broadcast engineer I talked with said the following about their dealings with the FCC and OTA HDTV: It's a joke. There are a lot of reception problems with FCC assigned power levels being too low. Then the FCC tells us we cannot put our HD signal at a lower spectrum level, even for a short period of time. So a lot of our viewers are the ones that suffer with all of this. |
"With five channels already providing an increasing amount of HD
programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free." But apparently most people do. For decades most people could receive std tv OTA for free. Yet cable and sat together have 70 to 85% market share, depending on how you count, with OTA continuing a steady decline. HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD offerings of both the locals and premium channels and it will be there, indeed it will have to be there, for HD to become mainstream. BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS Steve Bryan wrote in message ... In article , Bulk Daddy wrote: OTA is a bad design that services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good reliable OTA HD signals. This is the quote with which I am having trouble. You are basing this on what? What we get here on newsgroups and the web are interesting anecdotes. The impression I get is that ATSC reception is already better than the NTSC reception it is replacing. This is with many stations using provisional towers and lower power levels than they will eventually use. Also there is a new generation of 8-VSB demodulation silicon that is distinctly superior to what was available when I got my ATSC PCI receiver card (check the web site: www.linxelectronics.com). I also have an NTSC receiver card and should mention that since putting up a ChannelMaster antenna in the attic of my suburban home I get pretty good reception with it also. I'm not in a fringe location and can't meaningfully speculate about people in that situation. But others who are have reported better reception with ATSC than existing NTSC reception. My suspicion is that before long cable companies will have to market against a rising perception of their diminishing worth. Their initial justification was to compensate for lousy NTSC reception which will be ancient history as the transition to ATSC is completed. Their dead last position in customer service (how many industries have to be compelled by law to answer customer calls?). The premium channels that have diluted their offerings year after year (I remember when the movie selection on HBO was excellent). The original programming on HBO is a big exception but can be purchased for much less in DVD's by the patient consumer. If I could cherry pick just HBO that would be a great temptation but minimum price pushes $30/month and I'm sure that would just be camel's nose in the tent. With five channels already providing an increasing amount of HD programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free. |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message s.com... Chet Hayes wrote: "Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com... Chet Hayes wrote: "Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com... Chet Hayes wrote: I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement. Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households: From FCC-01-389A1.doc "A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes exceeding $75,000". Matthew OK, take your pick. Counting homes, OTA is 14 to 20%. Counting TV sets, its, 30%. Either way, it's not 40%, it's a minority and as Michael Powell himself pointed out, clearly declining over time. So you didn't read: "over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set" Or you chose to ignore it. Matthew Even if it is 10% it is foolish to think that OTA is going to go away completely anytime soon. We have it. It works well for many people. Where it does not or other better options come available, people will use them. What is the problem. By the experience that I have seen of many consumers OTA HD is working pretty well. If a few people have had a different experience why is anyone surprised. Isn't that to be expected with any technology. Also, the context of Matthew's citation of the numbers was pretty clear. Nit-picking the statistics is not making anyone's argument any more convincing. Argue with his points guys, if you have a convincing argument to make. Leonard Caillouet |
Chet Hayes wrote:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com... Chet Hayes wrote: "Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com... Chet Hayes wrote: I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive digital doesn't make any sense to me. According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40% of all TVs in the US are OTA only. Matthew I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these 40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement. Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households: From FCC-01-389A1.doc "A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes exceeding $75,000". Matthew OK, take your pick. Counting homes, OTA is 14 to 20%. Counting TV sets, its, 30%. Either way, it's not 40%, it's a minority and as Michael Powell himself pointed out, clearly declining over time. So you didn't read: "over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set" Or you chose to ignore it. 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. |
I was not "pushing" the 2K COFDM system that they have in the UK. I was
saying that this early COFDM system was far superior to 8-VSB. It has and is proving to be a vastly superior system. The early receivers were subject to interference by impulse noise because the manufacturers were not aware of how much of a problem it would be. This was solved with later receivers. Most problems of reception have to do with these older receivers. I always championed the COFDM 8K system which is far superior to the 2K or 8-VSB, modulation systems. It is the 8K system that was picked by both Australia and Taiwan for HDTV after they reversed their decision for 8-VSB and switched to COFDM 8K DVT-t. We should have done the same then. We didn't then so when we do switch it will be far more costly. Since I am an advocate of COFDM and Zenith is the chief proponent of 8-VSB why would I have ever invested in Zenith? "David" wrote in message ... Who cares what the supposed "sales figures" are when a neighbor's lawnmower or a motorscooter ruins the reception? The complaints are there, many of them, I've seen them and so have you. This "ancient" system is what you were pushing on the AVS forum, before you were thrown off. And it wasn't even HDTV! Did you lose a lot of money investing in Zenith? "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... David wrote: "Bulk Daddy" wrote in message: All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap. Hmm, I'm 30 miles from NYC, behind two mountain ranges. I can't get analog OTA worth anything, way too much ghosting. With a RCA DTC-100 and a $15 Radio Shack indoor antenna, I get _perfect_ OTA HDTV reception.Tell us what kind of equipment you're using? Lotsa people here can help you. I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting years ago seems to be just terrible. Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself. The British system is ancient COFDM 2K and yet they are outselling 8-VSB receivers 1000 to one in a market 1/16th the size. They only cover part of the country with transmitter powers that are minuscule compared to the power in the US. They are using 2K instead of 8K COFDM. Still they are selling receivers at the rate of 50,000 a week. There is a forum that gives a very good overall look at the UK at http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3 In a market that will see 3 million receivers by the end of this year and which only started broadcasting last November 1st there are hundreds of complaints? Amazing. However of the 7000 + post on uk,tch.digital-tv I do not see that many complaints. What I see are people inquiring about all kinds of problems including old receivers from a number of years ago. No general problem and very low prices for receivers. |
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. First they would have been heavily involved in the design and testing of the various parts of the proposed systems. Broadcasters were not engaged or minimally engaged in any part of the process. They left it up to lawyers, politicians , accountants and salesmen of the CEA, NAB and other special interest such as Zenith. They would have considered changing the compression codec at the same time or delayed the transition till a better codec was developed since they were available and could have been considered. Check out how Mpeg2 was decided on. If broadcasters had been engaged they would have stood up for a far superior modulation, COFDM, instead of caving at the first sign of pressure from the special interest and Congress. ABC, NBC who initially supported COFDM for example caved. Most broadcast engineers were either not up to evaluating modulation or were not listened to by their corporate masters who have regulated them to the back room where they are supposed to keep the OTA broadcast going primarily so that the broadcasters can continue to qualify for must carry. Broadcasters would have decided to change the method of broadcasting from single stick high power to Single Frequency Networks of low power transmitters with on channel repeaters. They would have petitioned the FCC to allow them to co-locate their broadcast facilities with other broadcasters so that cost and coverage would be optimized. And more... None of these things were done because broadcasters do not care about broadcasting, they care about must carry on cable. All the decisions that were made by the FCC, NAB, CEA were made for their own self interest. No decisions were made based on the good of the OTA public. Carefully read the following Brazilian comments. They complain the 8-VSB is made for cheap broadcasters at the expense of the receiving public while COFDM cost the broadcaster more but saves the public a bundle. Brazil summed it up well when they initially rejected 8-VSB after openly and extensively testing 8-VSB and COFDM. Here are their conclusions. Chapter VI - Conclusions Considering: .. That the COFDM modulation presents a better performance in severe multipath situations verified in areas densely peopled; .. That the COFDM modulation allows the implementation of transmission in High Definition with adequate robustness; .. That there are solutions in the COFDM modulations that out perform the 8VSB modulation in the impulsive noise immunity; .. That only the COFDM modulation allowed a 100% reception of the spots within the 10 Km radius. This radius was a function of the used ERP; bigger ERPs will correspond to bigger radiuses with 100% reception; .. That the results of the lab tests suggest that only the COFDM modulation allows the reception in areas not reached by any system, through the use of Single Frequency Networks; .. That the 4 dB advantage in the signal-noise ratio of the 8VSB modulation did not turn out to cause better coverage; .. That the disadvantageous results of the relation between the peak power and the average power have a low relevance, once they are costly only for the broadcasters, not the population; .. That the noted disadvantage observed in the COFDM modulation to the protection relation for adjacent channels can be eliminated by introducing filters with better rejection characteristics in the receivers; .. That all the results of co-channel interference are not significant to the planning of any of the tested modulations; .. That when a point of reflection is moving, the COFDM modulation shows better performance enabling even mobile reception; .. That the 8VSB receivers developed during the 2nd semester of 1999 and made available to the tests, until now, in despite of the use of sophisticated equalizing techinique, did not show real improvements in practical situations; .. That the COFDM modulation presents flexibility in the solving of coverage problems; .. The objective of optimizing the reception, duplicating or improving the current analog systems coverage ; .. That it is indispensable the use of a modulation that maximize the free off air reception; We conclude that the COFDM modulation, besides being technically superior, is more adequate to the Brazilian conditions than the 8VSB modulation and, therefore, we suggest to Anatel that it determines that the Digital Television system to be adopted in Brazil must use the COFDM modulation. We can observe that the disadvantages shown by the COFDM modulation systems are solvable, even though it implies additional cost to the broadcasters. However, the mentioned disadvantages shown by the systems with 8VSB modulation picture the boundaries inherent to the modulation itself. Only the consumer, who will need reception systems - antenna and receiver - more sophisticated, in the same proportion that his location may require, shoulders the onus of the flaws in the 8VSB modulation. On the other hand, only the broadcaster who, in certain situations, will have to implement transmission systems more powerful or sophisticated shoulders the onus of the difficulties in the COFDM modulation, all solvable. Among the possible systems that use the COFDM modulation, we believe that it is still necessary the accomplishment of further and complimentary tests, besides the market issue consideration, such as the evaluation of the impact that adopting on of the available systems will have on the national industry, and the timing of commercial availability of each system, so to make the final decision on the standard to be considered. Therefore, we will use the additional period that Anatel has conceded, that will be until the end of April, so we can develop the activities, the experiments and the necessary studies to reach a final positioning about which Digital TV system we consider more adequate to be adopted in Brazil. "darius" wrote in message ... Bulk Daddy wrote in .6... So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to keep prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then they could jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I can't get but one good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles away. so in the end, doesn't it really just come down to the fact that you can't get OTA so you think it sucks? Well I have directv and when are they going to have locals (i.e., broadcast networks) in HD? Not for a lonnnggg time. They have to do compression and stat muxing just for the few HD channels they have. My cable co. is waiting for who knows what. ASTC works NOW for me and goodness, it's free too. (Ironically, NSTC reception is unwatchable in my house.) |
"Bob Miller" wrote in message ink.net... I was not "pushing" the 2K COFDM system that they have in the UK. I was saying that this early COFDM system was far superior to 8-VSB. It is obviously not superior to 8VSB. There are actually cccurrent BBC and Freeview websites that admit interference problems. It has and is proving to be a vastly superior system. Another boldfaced lie. The early receivers were subject to interference by impulse noise because the manufacturers were not aware of how much of a problem it would be. This was solved with later receivers. Most problems of reception have to do with these older receivers. Another lie. There are hundreds of interference complaints since last February, most with new receivers. I always championed the COFDM 8K system which is far superior to the 2K or 8-VSB, modulation systems. It is the 8K system that was picked by both Australia and Taiwan for HDTV after they reversed their decision for 8-VSB and switched to COFDM 8K DVT-t. And who here is going to care? 8VSB was chosen by the USA and it works perfectly. You "championed" COFDM only for your personal business schemes. We should have done the same then. We didn't then so when we do switch it will be far more costly. Who's talking about switching, besides one lonely, despairing forum poster? Nobody in America is putting their HDTV equipment out on the curb, just because YOU want to switch to COFDM. Do you have any idea what a laughing stock you are? Since I am an advocate of COFDM and Zenith is the chief proponent of 8-VSB why would I have ever invested in Zenith? It might explain your hatred of American HDTV/Zenith/8VSB. I think you lost a ton of money somewhere... "David" wrote in message ... Who cares what the supposed "sales figures" are when a neighbor's lawnmower or a motorscooter ruins the reception? The complaints are there, many of them, I've seen them and so have you. This "ancient" system is what you were pushing on the AVS forum, before you were thrown off. And it wasn't even HDTV! Did you lose a lot of money investing in Zenith? |
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS If you count Fox Widescreen (yes, I know it's not HD, but the scripted shows at 480p are far better than NTSC), I get 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS. All but Fox do true HD, so even without Fox the count is 5. -- Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But 301-916-8131 | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts | throwing barrels at you." | -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama" |
HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD offerings of both the locals I am not holding my breath here, 2 - 5 years away if ever for HD locals on cable and the little dish will over compress it and it will tile all the time, you know they will. I love my BIG ugly dish, 500 channels, analog, digital, HD, time shift (east coast / west coast time zones, who needs TIVO) if it is out there I get it, and it is the unadulterated feed when it hits my input. and premium channels and it will be there, indeed it will have to be there, for HD to become mainstream. BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS Steve Bryan wrote in message ... In article , Bulk Daddy wrote: OTA is a bad design that services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good reliable OTA HD signals. This is the quote with which I am having trouble. You are basing this on what? What we get here on newsgroups and the web are interesting anecdotes. The impression I get is that ATSC reception is already better than the NTSC reception it is replacing. This is with many stations using provisional towers and lower power levels than they will eventually use. Also there is a new generation of 8-VSB demodulation silicon that is distinctly superior to what was available when I got my ATSC PCI receiver card (check the web site: www.linxelectronics.com). I also have an NTSC receiver card and should mention that since putting up a ChannelMaster antenna in the attic of my suburban home I get pretty good reception with it also. I'm not in a fringe location and can't meaningfully speculate about people in that situation. But others who are have reported better reception with ATSC than existing NTSC reception. My suspicion is that before long cable companies will have to market against a rising perception of their diminishing worth. Their initial justification was to compensate for lousy NTSC reception which will be ancient history as the transition to ATSC is completed. Their dead last position in customer service (how many industries have to be compelled by law to answer customer calls?). The premium channels that have diluted their offerings year after year (I remember when the movie selection on HBO was excellent). The original programming on HBO is a big exception but can be purchased for much less in DVD's by the patient consumer. If I could cherry pick just HBO that would be a great temptation but minimum price pushes $30/month and I'm sure that would just be camel's nose in the tent. With five channels already providing an increasing amount of HD programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free. |
| 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