Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

"David" wrote in message
...
Bob's advocacy of COFDM is a personal agenda. And he's always ignored the
obvious advantages that 8VSB offers.


8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

"David" wrote in message
...
Bob's advocacy of COFDM is a personal agenda. And he's always ignored the
obvious advantages that 8VSB offers.


8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:07:33 -0400, David wrote:
Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

Anyone who hasn't been on a rooftop in London (probably a lot of us)
should rent the movie "Notting Hill". There's a scene where the couple is
practicing lines on the roof, and "aerials" are everywhere in the
background.

I hate to keep repeating it everytime Bob keeps repeating his dogma, but
its a different situation there. I've watched cable TV in various towns in
England and Germany, and in a lot of places cable only has 8 or so
channels (many of them in some other language) - so it makes sense that
people would veer toward OTA rather than pay big monthly bills for a few
channels. Obviously antennas never went away there, so its something
they're familiar with. Houses are generally smaller, and there isn't room
for big-screens that would drive the demand for HD. In other words, its a
different environment.

As I've said before, OTA is how US sat users will get their locals. Only
the true technophobes (or people way out in the boonies, and can't get OTA
regardless of the modulation) will pay money for something that they can
get at higher quality for free. Saying that HD will be successful on
satellite and a failure on OTA makes no sense. Just as Europeans opt for
OTA because paying for cable is ludicrous, American sat users will opt for
OTA because paying for low-quality locals is ludicrous.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:07:33 -0400, David wrote:
Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

Anyone who hasn't been on a rooftop in London (probably a lot of us)
should rent the movie "Notting Hill". There's a scene where the couple is
practicing lines on the roof, and "aerials" are everywhere in the
background.

I hate to keep repeating it everytime Bob keeps repeating his dogma, but
its a different situation there. I've watched cable TV in various towns in
England and Germany, and in a lot of places cable only has 8 or so
channels (many of them in some other language) - so it makes sense that
people would veer toward OTA rather than pay big monthly bills for a few
channels. Obviously antennas never went away there, so its something
they're familiar with. Houses are generally smaller, and there isn't room
for big-screens that would drive the demand for HD. In other words, its a
different environment.

As I've said before, OTA is how US sat users will get their locals. Only
the true technophobes (or people way out in the boonies, and can't get OTA
regardless of the modulation) will pay money for something that they can
get at higher quality for free. Saying that HD will be successful on
satellite and a failure on OTA makes no sense. Just as Europeans opt for
OTA because paying for cable is ludicrous, American sat users will opt for
OTA because paying for low-quality locals is ludicrous.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

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

"David" wrote in message
...
Bob's advocacy of COFDM is a personal agenda. And he's always ignored
the
obvious advantages that 8VSB offers.

8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

Cofdm has no advantages here, except to line your pockets.

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

"David" wrote in message
...
Bob's advocacy of COFDM is a personal agenda. And he's always ignored
the
obvious advantages that 8VSB offers.

8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

Cofdm has no advantages here, except to line your pockets.

"David" wrote in message
...
Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

When and if they chose they can have HDTV. The modulation has nothing to do
with it. They now have HDTV via satellite BTW.

"David" wrote in message
...
Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

When and if they chose they can have HDTV. The modulation has nothing to do
with it. They now have HDTV via satellite BTW.

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:07:33 -0400, David wrote:
Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

Anyone who hasn't been on a rooftop in London (probably a lot of us)
should rent the movie "Notting Hill". There's a scene where the couple is
practicing lines on the roof, and "aerials" are everywhere in the
background.

I hate to keep repeating it everytime Bob keeps repeating his dogma, but
its a different situation there. I've watched cable TV in various towns in
England and Germany, and in a lot of places cable only has 8 or so
channels (many of them in some other language) - so it makes sense that
people would veer toward OTA rather than pay big monthly bills for a few
channels. Obviously antennas never went away there, so its something
they're familiar with. Houses are generally smaller, and there isn't room
for big-screens that would drive the demand for HD. In other words, its a
different environment.

As I've said before, OTA is how US sat users will get their locals. Only
the true technophobes (or people way out in the boonies, and can't get OTA
regardless of the modulation) will pay money for something that they can
get at higher quality for free. Saying that HD will be successful on
satellite and a failure on OTA makes no sense. Just as Europeans opt for
OTA because paying for cable is ludicrous, American sat users will opt for
OTA because paying for low-quality locals is ludicrous.

Right in the UK they already had antennas so why not use them. Also they
opted for an early 2K COFDM system that is not very robust and they are
broadcasting at very low power levels even by European standards. All this
calls for antennas though in door receivers work fine for most. A point is
that even using this 2K COFDM they are far better off than if they had
chosen 8-VSB which they rejected.

As far as Europe and cable. Germany and many other countries are heavily
into cable. Germany at 95%. Which makes it very instructive that Berlin is
going for OTA in a big way. Many are canceling cable for OTA. And there is
not need for a mandate.

As far as the boonies and the cities. OTA 8-VSB is challenged most just
where most of us live in the cities. That is where most of your dynamic and
static multipath is. I know of no one that has satisfactory reception of OTA
8-VSB in Manhattan for example.