|
|
1080P Standard?
It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.
|
1080P Standard?
|
1080P Standard?
BDK wrote:
In article , says... It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's. 1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change anytime soon. So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from now...maybe decades.. BDK Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format. |
1080P Standard?
Sam Spade wrote:
BDK wrote: In article , says... It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's. 1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change anytime soon. So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from now...maybe decades.. BDK Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format. Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they ever will as a broadcast format. 1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP, SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies. However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores. Alan F |
1080P Standard?
AlanF wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: BDK wrote: In article , says... It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's. 1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change anytime soon. So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from now...maybe decades.. BDK Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format. Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they ever will as a broadcast format. 1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP, SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies. However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores. Alan F The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the door to switching modulations. What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34 Mbps, for MPEG4 today. IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible. Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD program in the same 6 MHz. The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB. Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay in business in a world of 8-VSB. So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5% compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even 1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current receivers. I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and kill OTA. Bob Miller |
1080P Standard?
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net... AlanF wrote: Sam Spade wrote: BDK wrote: In article , says... It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's. 1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change anytime soon. So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from now...maybe decades.. BDK Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format. Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they ever will as a broadcast format. 1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP, SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies. However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores. Alan F The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the door to switching modulations. What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34 Mbps, for MPEG4 today. IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible. Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD program in the same 6 MHz. The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB. Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay in business in a world of 8-VSB. So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5% compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even 1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current receivers. I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and kill OTA. Bob Miller You forgot your link to your stupid little video. |
1080P Standard?
Bob Miller wrote:
The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the door to switching modulations. What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34 Mbps, for MPEG4 today. IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible. Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD program in the same 6 MHz. The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB. Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay in business in a world of 8-VSB. So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5% compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even 1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current receivers. I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and kill OTA. Bob Miller So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be discarded and then start over. You know, I read that shoot-out stuff from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well. You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway. What I think happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are running as well. I have no problems with any of them. Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less expensive - logical at the time. Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it. GG |
1080P Standard?
G-squared wrote:
Bob Miller wrote: The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the door to switching modulations. What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34 Mbps, for MPEG4 today. IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible. Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD program in the same 6 MHz. The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB. Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay in business in a world of 8-VSB. So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5% compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even 1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current receivers. I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and kill OTA. Bob Miller So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be discarded and then start over. What billions would have to be discarded? As to broadcasters they would have to switch out an 8-VSB modulator for a COFDM one. Not that expensive. Broadcasters would do that in a heartbeat if they could. They would love to switch to COFDM. The cost to them would be trivial compared to the cost in bit rate alone that they will suffer when they start using A-VSB. And that bit cost goes on forever. Every day they lose at least 8 Mbps all the time. And the cost of buying an A-VSB modulator will be far higher than that of a COFDM modulator. With COFDM they would maintain a high bit rate and have a robust signal at the same time. As to the cost to early adopters, hard to imagine that buyers of 8-VSB receivers are still considered early adopters after almost nine years, they have been buying the latest 8-VSB receivers offered over and over in the vain attempt to find one that works for years. Some tell of owning 12 and more receivers. And they would line up to buy an LG 5th gen receiver that matched the prototype tested 2 years ago if LG ever decided to make it. They would have to pony up for a new COFDM receiver yes. All of maybe $130 initially for a basic HDTV receiver but one that worked. You know, I read that shoot-out stuff from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well. You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway. They? They, the ones controlling the "shootout" were the NAB and MSTV, they were the strongest proponents of 8-VSB. "They" were the enemies of COFDM. "They" went to a great deal of trouble, in secret, to find a "receiver" that would not work. "They" then pretended "they" knew nothing about the problem with this "receiver", namely that is was NOT a receiver. This was a fraud, a fraudulent test, performed by those who wanted a certain outcome. "They" did it in secret. I personally called the engineer who was in charge of finding COFDM receivers and was told that the three I offered were not needed since they had ALL the receivers they needed. "They" had ONE "receiver" that was actually a transmitter monitor specifically set up to accept all interference and meant to be attached, hard wired, directly to a transmitter not be carted around the far field as a receiver. "They" knew exactly what they were doing and that was to participate in a fraudulent charade to discredit COFDM. What I think happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are running as well. I have no problems with any of them. Not a big deal with COFDM either. Co-channel interference is not an issue. Sharp filter technology has long ago made that a non issue. It was a non issue when it was used as a canard to sabotage COFDM in 2001 and the parties knew that. All test of COFDM that have been done in the real world have found that the power differential is a non issue. They can't find it in the real world. Australia was in the 8-VSB camp for years before they did a comprehensive test, in the open, and switched to COFDM. And Australia has lots of big open spaces where coverage is what it is all about. Same with Russia and China, all in the COFDM camp. Well China has a foot in both camps but the market will decide and that means COFDM exclusively. Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less expensive - logical at the time. 8-VSB is far far more expensive. First it has cost nine years of stagnation. Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it. "Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. And it is not all new stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on Ebay, as little as $35 new. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 within six months of it being OKed in the US. Bob Miller GG |
1080P Standard?
"Bob Miller" wrote
"They" knew exactly what they were doing and that was to participate in a fraudulent charade to discredit COFDM. ****, all these years I always thought they were participating in fraudulent charades to discredit "viacel". :-/ |
1080P Standard?
AlanF wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: BDK wrote: In article , says... It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's. 1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change anytime soon. So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from now...maybe decades.. BDK Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format. Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they ever will as a broadcast format. The only thing 1080/24p has a problem with is 60i video. If you had a channel dedicated to film sourced material (filmed TV shows and movies) there shouldn't be a problem with 24p. Even then I don't think deinterlacing 60i to 24p for commercials or the odd program would render an unwatchable mess. I, for one, would like to see a movie channel (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, TMC) show it's faire in 1080/24p. |
1080P Standard?
Top post intended...
Anyone can do a quick google on the history your postings and easily find out what a *CRAZY* GOD-DAMNED LIAR YOU ARE. "Bob Miller" wrote in message nk.net... G-squared wrote: Bob Miller wrote: The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the door to switching modulations. What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34 Mbps, for MPEG4 today. IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible. Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD program in the same 6 MHz. The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB. Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay in business in a world of 8-VSB. So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5% compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even 1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current receivers. I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and kill OTA. Bob Miller So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be discarded and then start over. What billions would have to be discarded? As to broadcasters they would have to switch out an 8-VSB modulator for a COFDM one. Not that expensive. Broadcasters would do that in a heartbeat if they could. They would love to switch to COFDM. The cost to them would be trivial compared to the cost in bit rate alone that they will suffer when they start using A-VSB. And that bit cost goes on forever. Every day they lose at least 8 Mbps all the time. And the cost of buying an A-VSB modulator will be far higher than that of a COFDM modulator. With COFDM they would maintain a high bit rate and have a robust signal at the same time. As to the cost to early adopters, hard to imagine that buyers of 8-VSB receivers are still considered early adopters after almost nine years, they have been buying the latest 8-VSB receivers offered over and over in the vain attempt to find one that works for years. Some tell of owning 12 and more receivers. And they would line up to buy an LG 5th gen receiver that matched the prototype tested 2 years ago if LG ever decided to make it. They would have to pony up for a new COFDM receiver yes. All of maybe $130 initially for a basic HDTV receiver but one that worked. You know, I read that shoot-out stuff from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well. You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway. They? They, the ones controlling the "shootout" were the NAB and MSTV, they were the strongest proponents of 8-VSB. "They" were the enemies of COFDM. "They" went to a great deal of trouble, in secret, to find a "receiver" that would not work. "They" then pretended "they" knew nothing about the problem with this "receiver", namely that is was NOT a receiver. This was a fraud, a fraudulent test, performed by those who wanted a certain outcome. "They" did it in secret. I personally called the engineer who was in charge of finding COFDM receivers and was told that the three I offered were not needed since they had ALL the receivers they needed. "They" had ONE "receiver" that was actually a transmitter monitor specifically set up to accept all interference and meant to be attached, hard wired, directly to a transmitter not be carted around the far field as a receiver. "They" knew exactly what they were doing and that was to participate in a fraudulent charade to discredit COFDM. What I think happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are running as well. I have no problems with any of them. Not a big deal with COFDM either. Co-channel interference is not an issue. Sharp filter technology has long ago made that a non issue. It was a non issue when it was used as a canard to sabotage COFDM in 2001 and the parties knew that. All test of COFDM that have been done in the real world have found that the power differential is a non issue. They can't find it in the real world. Australia was in the 8-VSB camp for years before they did a comprehensive test, in the open, and switched to COFDM. And Australia has lots of big open spaces where coverage is what it is all about. Same with Russia and China, all in the COFDM camp. Well China has a foot in both camps but the market will decide and that means COFDM exclusively. Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less expensive - logical at the time. 8-VSB is far far more expensive. First it has cost nine years of stagnation. Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it. "Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. And it is not all new stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on Ebay, as little as $35 new. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 within six months of it being OKed in the US. Bob Miller GG |
1080P Standard?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:33:11 -0400 AlanF wrote:
| Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth | is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and | 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they | ever will as a broadcast format. And this is too bad, too. There is a lot of source material in 24 fps, and I suppose also some in 30 fps. It would not be hard to overscan 24 at viewer's choice of 48, 72, or even 96 fps. Likewise 30 fps can be overscanned at 60 or 90. And some technology doesn't even need it. if you have the bandwidth for 720p60 you have more than enough for 1080p24. While the former would be good for sports, the latter would be great for movies shot at that frame rate. | 1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat | network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are | inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP, | SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it | will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for | Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies. Why would 1080p become 1080i at the display? | However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see | the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living | room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p | plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores. Get the display size appropriate for your room size and typical viewing distance. Not everyone has the same thing. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:55:28 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. | Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality | program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD | program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the | door to switching modulations. I don't think the stations would be interested in yet another shuffling and juggling of channels and transmitters to go with a modulation that is better suited for smaller localized low power transmitters in large numbers. OTOH, if you really want to change modulation, how about QAM? -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On 8 Aug 2006 21:20:27 -0700 G-squared wrote:
| So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be | discarded and then start over. You know, I read that shoot-out stuff | from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well. | You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a | shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway. What I think | happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power | output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of | co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since | channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are | running as well. I have no problems with any of them. When I was doing TV DX-ing from the late 60's to the mid 80's, I found that there was no trouble receiving distant weak stations in adjacent channels to strong local stations, even on UHF. I would frequently get channel 32 from Chicago when weak signal conditions were good despite channel 33 breathing down my neck. Of course certain problems could exist with stations 5 or 7 channels apart when both were very strong. Hopefully that problem will be gone with digital. But adjacent channel wasn't a problem in terms of strong stations blotting out weak stations in the technology from the late 60's. | Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress | was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less | expensive - logical at the time. | | Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it. However, I think the switchover to MPEG-4 would not be nearly as hard to do. The FCC could make the rule that allows it on a specific date in the future, giving receiver manufacturers time to integrate it, or at least make receivers with plugins or firmware that can be updated. Then instead of mandating it, merely allow stations to choose to use it for a gradually increasing percentage of air time over the course of a few years. STBs can be used to cover for older sets. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:20:27 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| What billions would have to be discarded? As to broadcasters they would | have to switch out an 8-VSB modulator for a COFDM one. Not that | expensive. Broadcasters would do that in a heartbeat if they could. They | would love to switch to COFDM. The cost to them would be trivial | compared to the cost in bit rate alone that they will suffer when they | start using A-VSB. And that bit cost goes on forever. Every day they | lose at least 8 Mbps all the time. And the cost of buying an A-VSB | modulator will be far higher than that of a COFDM modulator. You forgot (assuming you ever knew in the first place) that they will also need to switch out the PA stage to one with a higher peak power capability, or else diminish their coverage area (if the FCC were to allow it) on a lower average power. If they want to keep the same average power, the PA is also going to be wasting more power trying to be linear over a wider dynamic range. In some cases that can means swapping out the backup generator or even utility transformers. | With COFDM they would maintain a high bit rate and have a robust signal | at the same time. But not reach as far, which would mean they have to start installing a bunch of repeaters. More cost. | "Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. And it is not all | new stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on | Ebay, as little as $35 new. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 | within six months of it being OKed in the US. The problem is really caused by arrogant manufacturers just refusing to make the products. More people would buy 8-VSB/ATSC equipped receivers today if they were made and available in stores. I know I would. The only reason an HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 if such a change were to happen is because people would suddenly be afraid to buy anything with all these changes happening. What is needed right now is stability, and the force of law to force manufacturers to make the products or leave the US market entirely. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
They would have to pony up for a new COFDM receiver yes. All of maybe $130 initially for a basic HDTV receiver but one that worked. Another Psycho Bob masturbatory wet dream. They? They, the ones controlling the "shootout" were the NAB and MSTV, they were the strongest proponents of 8-VSB. Psycho Bob thinks that the NAB has nothing to do with broadcasters. Not a big deal with COFDM either. Co-channel interference is not an issue. That does not agree with the reports pouring in from the UK and Australia of problems with COFDM reception. And no HD. Australia has lots of big open spaces where coverage is what it is all about. Australia has a handful of densely-concentrated population centers and huge unpopulated deserts. That is not the same situation as rural coverage in the US and Canada. Same with Russia and China, all in the COFDM camp. China has many extremely dense-concentrated population centers, and unpopulated deserts. Instead of deserts, Russia has mosquito infested unpopulated tundra swamps. "Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. The word "few" for Psycho Bob apparently has a very different meaning than for most people. 8-VSB receivers have become ubiquitous in the past two years. And it is not all new stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on Ebay, as little as $35 new. Yeah, people in the UK are all dumping their Freeview receivers on EBay because they discovered that the receivers don't work worth a damn. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 within six months of it being OKed in the US. If it isn't, do I get to whack Psycho Bob on the head with a crowbar? -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. |
1080P Standard?
|
1080P Standard?
|
1080P Standard?
Bob Miller wrote:
Any switch of codecs with whatever parameters makes all current receivers obsolete. Since it does so we might as well consider switching modulations, updating if you will, and we should consider ALL of the latest versions of all modulations including 8-VSB. If we were to accept the idea that any COFDM modulation was less power efficient or couldn't handle adjacent channels as well as or was more susceptible to impulse noise than 8-VSB, all of which have been rejected by every country that has tested the two over the last ten years, it would still make sense to switch to the latest version of 8-VSB. At least that would be better than nothing. It would be stupid but not nearly as stupid as not taking advantage of the chance to upgrade. But since all current receivers would be obsolete it would make more sense to test all modulations to see which would be the best. Bob Miller While we're at it, how about change all the cars to right-hand drive? How about 50 Hz power? Wouldn't the generators last longer because they turn slower? We _could_ change to a 50 Hz frame rate then too. Then all we'd have to put up with is screwed up audio when the 24 fps film is run at 25 frame like the Europeans see. No more of that pesky 3:2 business. How about the metric system? Wait that _is_ a good idea ! I'll say one thing Bob. You're tenacious (obstinate) but you _are_ lightening up a bit. GG |
1080P Standard?
On 13 Aug 2006 21:07:28 -0700 G-squared wrote:
| Bob Miller wrote: | Any switch of codecs with whatever parameters makes all current | receivers obsolete. | | Since it does so we might as well consider switching modulations, | updating if you will, and we should consider ALL of the latest | versions | of all modulations including 8-VSB. | | If we were to accept the idea that any COFDM modulation was less | power | efficient or couldn't handle adjacent channels as well as or was | more | susceptible to impulse noise than 8-VSB, all of which have been | rejected | by every country that has tested the two over the last ten years, it | | would still make sense to switch to the latest version of 8-VSB. | | At least that would be better than nothing. It would be stupid but | not | nearly as stupid as not taking advantage of the chance to upgrade. | | But since all current receivers would be obsolete it would make more | | sense to test all modulations to see which would be the best. | | Bob Miller | | While we're at it, how about change all the cars to right-hand drive? | How about 50 Hz power? Wouldn't the generators last longer because they | turn slower? We _could_ change to a 50 Hz frame rate then too. Then all | we'd have to put up with is screwed up audio when the 24 fps film is | run at 25 frame like the Europeans see. No more of that pesky 3:2 | business. How about the metric system? Wait that _is_ a good idea ! Generators can be made to run very slow and generate higher frequency. You don't have to run them at 3000 RPM for 50 Hz or 3600 RPM for 60 Hz. I've seen then as slow as 600 RPM. It would just have multiple coils around the armature. But I do think they should have made ATSC recognize the 25 and 50 Hz frame rates, and 576 line image sizes. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
G-squared wrote:
Bob Miller wrote: Any switch of codecs with whatever parameters makes all current receivers obsolete. Since it does so we might as well consider switching modulations, updating if you will, and we should consider ALL of the latest versions of all modulations including 8-VSB. If we were to accept the idea that any COFDM modulation was less power efficient or couldn't handle adjacent channels as well as or was more susceptible to impulse noise than 8-VSB, all of which have been rejected by every country that has tested the two over the last ten years, it would still make sense to switch to the latest version of 8-VSB. At least that would be better than nothing. It would be stupid but not nearly as stupid as not taking advantage of the chance to upgrade. But since all current receivers would be obsolete it would make more sense to test all modulations to see which would be the best. Bob Miller While we're at it, how about change all the cars to right-hand drive? How about 50 Hz power? Wouldn't the generators last longer because they turn slower? We _could_ change to a 50 Hz frame rate then too. Then all we'd have to put up with is screwed up audio when the 24 fps film is run at 25 frame like the Europeans see. No more of that pesky 3:2 business. How about the metric system? Wait that _is_ a good idea ! I'll say one thing Bob. You're tenacious (obstinate) but you _are_ lightening up a bit. GG Horrors!! Always thought I was light. If your analogy of changing to right-hand drive was apropos it would only work if someone were proposing something that would make all current cars obsolete. So who is proposing what that would render all current cars obsolete? Same with the other things you mentioned. Allowing MPEG4 AVC would make all current receivers obsolete totally. Including A-VSB as part of the ATSC standard would make up to 87% of any specific current receiver obsolete. Any current receiver or any sold before all receivers were mandated to be able to receive A-VSB would be limited to receiving that portion of the spectrum that would offer an 8-VSB program. As it is all current receivers will become 87% obsolete as broadcasters begin to use MPEG4 on most of their 6 MHz channels which they are allowed to do now and which competitive pressures will force them toward IMO. So if we decide that we should allow MPEG4 AVC on the last 13% of the spectrum that current receivers are still good for you might as well reconsider everything. After all if things go on as they are and OTA simply fails completely and Congress decides to sell off the rest of the free OTA spectrum all current receivers will become obsolete that way to. Bob Miller |
1080P Standard?
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:42:03 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | wrote: | On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:55:28 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | | | The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec. | | Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality | | program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD | | program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the | | door to switching modulations. | | I don't think the stations would be interested in yet another shuffling | and juggling of channels and transmitters to go with a modulation that | is better suited for smaller localized low power transmitters in large | numbers. OTOH, if you really want to change modulation, how about QAM? | | COFDM is Coded Orthogonal Frequency Multiplexing normally using QAM as a | modulation. | | Any COFDM (QAM) modulation is better suited than 8-VSB for either a | single fixed high powered transmitter, a Single Frequency Network or a | combination of both. I'm curious, what happens to the higher COFDM power peaks if the PA or other transmitter stage clips them off to the point where COFDM has a peak to average ratio like that of 8-VSB? Wouldn't that produce a lot of intermodulation effects in and out of the channel? Not an engineer but my take is that worst case, to solve any problem having to do with peak to average power differences between COFDM and 8-VSB you would have to lower COFDM power slightly. The other take I have been given is that the problem is of little or no significance. Lowering power a smidgen eliminates the need to clip though that is over rated as a problem as well I am told. Broadcasters would, broadcasters have, in all cases where given the choice except the US where their decision is colored by must carry and where there threatened and intimidated with the loss of their spectrum (all of it) or their must carry rights, chose COFDM over 8-VSB. | There is not one broadcaster in the US that would not be ecstatic to | switch to a COFDM modulation if they did not have must carry on cable. | How must carry has twisted the thinking of the lawyers and accountants | that run todays TV stations I can't totally fathom. As other new | broadcasters use COFDM on old TV frequencies above channel 51 | broadcasters below 51 will awaken to just how puny must carry is to what | they could be doing with their OTA spectrum id they just had the right | tools. How does must carry play into this? What are the "broadcasters" above 51 going to be reaching people if they don't have a must carry and aren't compatible with existing receivers? Are you going to be supplying STB's? All of them will have to supply STB's or deliver content so compelling that the customer will buy such. Funny I don't see any of them taking advantage of the coming ubiquity of 8-VSB receivers due to the mandate. I wonder why? Why doesn't any new broadcaster consider 8-VSB what with all its advantages. The first broadcasters in that space will be going after the cell phone market which is what we proposed to them since it was in their line of work. But we would have gone after a broader market that would include all fixed, portable and mobile devices. The third entrant, Hiwire, suggest they will do just that with their 12 MHz. We suggested that to them also. They were laughing for the first few years. And Hiwire, which proposed DTV mobile, will not be considering 8-VSB even with A-VSB. I'm also curious why you aren't using MPEG-4 for that video on your web page. Good question, maybe I will change it. It was a simple video meant to show a particular party what we were doing. Only later did I think of showing it to anyone else. The compression was not important. Bob Miller |
1080P Standard?
Bob Miller wrote:
snip I'm curious, what happens to the higher COFDM power peaks if the PA or other transmitter stage clips them off to the point where COFDM has a peak to average ratio like that of 8-VSB? Wouldn't that produce a lot of intermodulation effects in and out of the channel? Not an engineer but my take is that worst case, to solve any problem having to do with peak to average power differences between COFDM and 8-VSB you would have to lower COFDM power slightly. The other take I have been given is that the problem is of little or no significance. Lowering power a smidgen eliminates the need to clip though that is over rated as a problem as well I am told. Broadcasters would, broadcasters have, in all cases where given the choice except the US where their decision is colored by must carry and where there threatened and intimidated with the loss of their spectrum (all of it) or their must carry rights, chose COFDM over 8-VSB. | There is not one broadcaster in the US that would not be ecstatic to | switch to a COFDM modulation if they did not have must carry on cable. | How must carry has twisted the thinking of the lawyers and accountants | that run todays TV stations I can't totally fathom. As other new | broadcasters use COFDM on old TV frequencies above channel 51 | broadcasters below 51 will awaken to just how puny must carry is to what | they could be doing with their OTA spectrum id they just had the right | tools. How does must carry play into this? What are the "broadcasters" above 51 going to be reaching people if they don't have a must carry and aren't compatible with existing receivers? Are you going to be supplying STB's? All of them will have to supply STB's or deliver content so compelling that the customer will buy such. Funny I don't see any of them taking advantage of the coming ubiquity of 8-VSB receivers due to the mandate. I wonder why? Why doesn't any new broadcaster consider 8-VSB what with all its advantages. The first broadcasters in that space will be going after the cell phone market which is what we proposed to them since it was in their line of work. But we would have gone after a broader market that would include all fixed, portable and mobile devices. The third entrant, Hiwire, suggest they will do just that with their 12 MHz. We suggested that to them also. They were laughing for the first few years. You mean THIS cell phone market? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...7477183820af94 And Hiwire, which proposed DTV mobile, will not be considering 8-VSB even with A-VSB. I'm also curious why you aren't using MPEG-4 for that video on your web page. Good question, maybe I will change it. It was a simple video meant to show a particular party what we were doing. Only later did I think of showing it to anyone else. The compression was not important. Bob Miller GG |
1080P Standard?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:22 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| If your analogy of changing to right-hand drive was apropos it would | only work if someone were proposing something that would make all | current cars obsolete. So who is proposing what that would render all | current cars obsolete? | | Same with the other things you mentioned. | | Allowing MPEG4 AVC would make all current receivers obsolete totally. Statements like that just dig your hole of respectibility even deeper than it already is. | Including A-VSB as part of the ATSC standard would make up to 87% of any | specific current receiver obsolete. Any current receiver or any sold | before all receivers were mandated to be able to receive A-VSB would be | limited to receiving that portion of the spectrum that would offer an | 8-VSB program. | | As it is all current receivers will become 87% obsolete as broadcasters | begin to use MPEG4 on most of their 6 MHz channels which they are | allowed to do now and which competitive pressures will force them toward | IMO. There will be firmware upgrades. Some units probably already have MPEG4 to support other signals sources, anyway (e.g. cable, satellite). | So if we decide that we should allow MPEG4 AVC on the last 13% of the | spectrum that current receivers are still good for you might as well | reconsider everything. Then let's move on up to 2560x1440p60. MPEG4 could do that in 6 Mhz. But NONE of this involves changing out station RF facilities, nor even changing any translators, converters, or processors that don't need to decompress image content (e.g. if they just re-digitize the bitstream to restore it to clean and re-transmit or carry it over wire). You weren't going to propose anything that involved RF waveform changes, were you? | After all if things go on as they are and OTA simply fails completely | and Congress decides to sell off the rest of the free OTA spectrum all | current receivers will become obsolete that way to. Sounds like something that would give you joy. So, sit back and let it happen. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:03:14 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote: [...] | I'm curious, what happens to the higher COFDM power peaks if the PA or | other transmitter stage clips them off to the point where COFDM has a | peak to average ratio like that of 8-VSB? Wouldn't that produce a lot | of intermodulation effects in and out of the channel? | | Not an engineer but my take is that worst case, to solve any problem | having to do with peak to average power differences between COFDM and | 8-VSB you would have to lower COFDM power slightly. The other take I | have been given is that the problem is of little or no significance. | Lowering power a smidgen eliminates the need to clip though that is | over rated as a problem as well I am told. I've read estimates that the power reduction would be somewhere from 2db to 6db, depending on type of coverage and terrain. That would mean fringe reception would be a problem, and gaps would have to be filled in. That means the channeling would have to be juggled yet again so channels can be available for the fringe transmitters. So it would be a choice between either changing channel or going up about 3db in peak power to maintain the same average power. Such a PA stage would also waste more power, which will show up on the electric bill forever. | Broadcasters would, broadcasters have, in all cases where given the | choice except the US where their decision is colored by must carry and | where there threatened and intimidated with the loss of their spectrum | (all of it) or their must carry rights, chose COFDM over 8-VSB. I see the must carry rule is applicable to the relationship between cable and the cable customers, not the broadcasters. Of course broadcasters do benefit from such a rule. But the cable customers do, as well, to ensure that the choice of NOT putting up an antenna is available to them. And I fully support a full multi-channel must carry, as well, in the cases where the cable system chooses to carry the station in digital (analog carriage would only require the main subchannel, and one or the other alone would meet the MCMC rule as I would write it). One exception I would support is a cable system may elect to NOT carry any broadcast at all (e.g. operate as an OTA supplement). I would also favor MCMC rules to apply to satellite carriers as well. | All of them will have to supply STB's or deliver content so compelling | that the customer will buy such. Funny I don't see any of them taking | advantage of the coming ubiquity of 8-VSB receivers due to the mandate. Funny I don't see a wide choice of products on the market, yet. I think the time is long past due to impose multi-million dollar fines on the manufacturers. | I wonder why? Why doesn't any new broadcaster consider 8-VSB what with | all its advantages. The first broadcasters in that space will be going | after the cell phone market which is what we proposed to them since it | was in their line of work. But we would have gone after a broader market | that would include all fixed, portable and mobile devices. The third | entrant, Hiwire, suggest they will do just that with their 12 MHz. We | suggested that to them also. They were laughing for the first few years. | | And Hiwire, which proposed DTV mobile, will not be considering 8-VSB | even with A-VSB. If the target market is mobile, COFDM makes more sense. There will be many more smaller transmitters, too. And they have a fixed national spectrum so they can manage it as they see fit. | I'm also curious why you aren't using MPEG-4 for that video on your web | page. | | Good question, maybe I will change it. It was a simple video meant to | show a particular party what we were doing. Only later did I think of | showing it to anyone else. The compression was not important. I would have been happy with MPEG2. Hell, even DV would have been fine by me (though it would be slow to download). But Flash? Phooey! If you have video you want to let everyone see, use MPEG. MPEG4 should be fine as long as it encoded with a non-broken codec. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
|
1080P Standard?
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:04:25 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote: | On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:22 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | | | If your analogy of changing to right-hand drive was apropos it would | | only work if someone were proposing something that would make all | | current cars obsolete. So who is proposing what that would render all | | current cars obsolete? | | | | Same with the other things you mentioned. | | | | Allowing MPEG4 AVC would make all current receivers obsolete totally. | | Statements like that just dig your hole of respectibility even deeper | than it already is. | | I would be interested in hearing of current receivers that will be able | to handle a switch to MPEG4. What percentage of all receiver out their | are capable of this? Do you think that the $50 converter boxes and all | integrated sets should be capable of MPEG4? How about A-VSB? All parties | are working very hard to get A-VSB accepted ASAP. Should all mandated | receivers be mandated to work with MPEG4 and A-VSB? I'm not privy to the designs. I don't know how easy it is to reload firmware. I don't know if they have a pluggable board inside or not. If I were making the decisions on engineering design I certainly would have made them modular and upgradeable. OTOH, marketing may be adamant about forcing obsolescence and repurchasing. | Do you agree that MPEG4 and/or A-VSB would make some or all current | receivers obsolete? If so how many? Would it be as many as converting to | COFDM in 2000 would have made obsolete? That was the key question at the | time. The holy of holies, installed receivers. It's possible. But I just don't know for sure, lacking the engineering specifications. I'm sure if things had been changed to go to COFDM in 2000, not all that many sets would be obsoleted. Even that could have depended on modularity. FYI, my preference for 8VSB is more based on how it behaves, not in the obsolescence issue (I don't own a digital set/receiver/STB, yet). | If we don't convert to MPEG4 you could argue that half the spectrum's | capability is being wasted for the life of 8-VSB. If you don't add A-VSB | to 8-VSB you restrict broadcaster such that many of them consider the | future of the OTA spectrum, 2-51, to be irrelevant. Some suggest that | during the actual DTV transition in a few years half of those who now | still depend on OTA will be herded into cable or satellite services | leaving a few die hards who simply don't watch much TV, don't watch any | TV or who steal cable and satellite and therefore don't belong on the | list of those who rely on OTA. I personally would like to see the switch to MPEG4. But I don't want to see a switch in modulation. | And how do you count those who don't really rely on OTA though they | don't have cable or satellite or FIOS but actually rely on broadband for | much of their TV and only fall back on OTA occasionally? | | The 15% number of those who still rely on OTA is already very suspect | and getting more so every day. Expect some politician to make a lot of | hay over the argument that this spectrum can do a lot more good for the | US treasury and other uses. Trial balloons have been attempted on this | subject every so often. As the transition nears this will become | headline stuff IMO. Are you somehow trying to make sure OTA survives? | So you are of the opinion that a firmware upgrade makes obsolete go | away. What if the upgrade cost as much as a new receiver? What if it | cost half as much as a new receiver, does that make for half obsolete? | What if a new HD COFDM receiver cost half as much as the upgrade for an | 8-VSB receiver that would otherwise be obsolete? The rules that change to MPEG4 can deal with the cost issue. OTOH, what will we do when MPEG5 comes out? MPEG6? TV sets are going to become computers. Oh wait, they already are. | Even an upgrade that made a current receiver both good for A-VSB and | MPEG4 would still see your use of the spectrum massively inefficient | compared to using the spectrum with a COFDM based modulation or maybe | even with an improved from the bottom 8-VSB solution. How many times bit rate bandwidth does COFDM provide compared to 8VSB? | | So if we decide that we should allow MPEG4 AVC on the last 13% of the | | spectrum that current receivers are still good for you might as well | | reconsider everything. | | Then let's move on up to 2560x1440p60. MPEG4 could do that in 6 Mhz. | | Reconsider, not necessarily go to the nth on every aspect of this. We | could decide that we want to be able to broadcast 1080/60P or that we | want to adopt DMB-T/H, DVB-T/H or even an advanced 8-VSB. After all a | lot of new HDTV's are capable of 1080/60P. The thing is if you accept | the fact that going to MPEG4 and/or A-VSB is akin to making most of a | given current receiver obsolete or most of all current receivers | obsolete then it only makes common sense to take advantage of what is an | opportunity to upgrade as much as possible. I'm convinced that going with MPEG4 is a definite plus. I'm not convinced of COFDM at all. | And broadcasters would love to do just that and the cost to do so would | not be any more than the upgrade to MPEG4 and A-VSB would be. Modulator? PA? power bill? | How long do you think the current 8-VSB will last? How do you see things | shaking out as to OTA viewers using 8-VSB OTA receivers? Do you see an | increase or decrease in OTA DTV viewers in the US? A substantial one? Or | should we just ignore OTA 2-51 for the next 50 years? I really don't know where OTA is headed. I do know the _networks_ would prefer to be delivering over satellite and cable, rather than locals. They already have some programming on that route now, anyway. If networks do manage to move everything to satellite/cable, would that be the death knell for broadcasters? | I know of one TV station owner who is about to give up. Sell his | stations to a speculator cheap who is willing to wait out this mess and | make a killing in a few years. On the speculator side the thinking is | that this mess has to be resolved in a reasonable period. The current | owner no longer believes that is possible. Wants to sell cheap before | the transition kills him. And you think COFDM would even made any difference? | I have been preaching the dangers to free OTA broadcasting that having | the wrong modulation presents for the last six years and you think I | would find joy in losing that argument? Just so I can say I told you so? | It would be a lot more satisfying if I were to have some effect on | changing the modulation and seeing the ensuing incredible rapid rebirth | of OTA broadcasting in the US. And that would include a lot of HD using | MPEG4, a lot of 480P that was captured by very good 720P cameras and | upconverted to a very good 720P/1080i/1080P at the set. I do suspect OTA will die in a couple decades (and that it will even be obvious in a few years). But I also believe it has nothing to do with the modulation, and everything to do with the programming. About the only things worthwhile OTA are local news (HD not needed) and PBS. There are some worthwhile national networks on the satellites and cable to fill the void (IMHO, they are Animal Planet, Discovery, Food Channel, HGTV, History Channel, Travel Channel, Weather Channel, and some news channels). -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:04:25 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | wrote: | On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:22 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | | | If your analogy of changing to right-hand drive was apropos it would | | only work if someone were proposing something that would make all | | current cars obsolete. So who is proposing what that would render all | | current cars obsolete? | | | | Same with the other things you mentioned. | | | | Allowing MPEG4 AVC would make all current receivers obsolete totally. | | Statements like that just dig your hole of respectibility even deeper | than it already is. | | I would be interested in hearing of current receivers that will be able | to handle a switch to MPEG4. What percentage of all receiver out their | are capable of this? Do you think that the $50 converter boxes and all | integrated sets should be capable of MPEG4? How about A-VSB? All parties | are working very hard to get A-VSB accepted ASAP. Should all mandated | receivers be mandated to work with MPEG4 and A-VSB? I'm not privy to the designs. I don't know how easy it is to reload firmware. I don't know if they have a pluggable board inside or not. If I were making the decisions on engineering design I certainly would have made them modular and upgradeable. OTOH, marketing may be adamant about forcing obsolescence and repurchasing. Converter boxes by law can have not one IOTA of extras or they do not qualify for the subsidy. There will be no converter boxes built that do NOT qualify for the subsidy IMO. Converter boxes sans any change in the law will not have ANY capabilities at all but the reception of SD and HD signals via 8-VSB. You can include a remote. The question is do you, does anyone, think that these converter boxes should include MPEG4 and A-VSB capability since a good part of the spectrum that they will receive will be devoted to A-VSB and MPEG4? If so than someone should be rattling the cage down in DC to make it happen. When the possibility of JUST allowing COFDM as a modulation in the US was proposed all hell broke loose about the sacred 8-VSB receivers that had already been sold by then, middle of 2000. All 10,000 of them. Now we, Congress, proposes to spend a couple of billion on converter boxes that will be obsolete virtually as soon as they are distributed. Or maybe Congress in its wisdom will rewrite the law making MPEG4 and A-VSB prohibited. Thats the spirit, when in doubt go backwards. They did it when confronted with the obvious superiority of COFDM. | Do you agree that MPEG4 and/or A-VSB would make some or all current | receivers obsolete? If so how many? Would it be as many as converting to | COFDM in 2000 would have made obsolete? That was the key question at the | time. The holy of holies, installed receivers. It's possible. But I just don't know for sure, lacking the engineering specifications. I'm sure if things had been changed to go to COFDM in 2000, not all that many sets would be obsoleted. Even that could have depended on modularity. Very very few sets, mostly STBs and broadcasters were willing to compensate those affected. Sinclair would have replaced all 8-VSB receivers in their coverage area. FYI, my preference for 8VSB is more based on how it behaves, not in the obsolescence issue (I don't own a digital set/receiver/STB, yet). | If we don't convert to MPEG4 you could argue that half the spectrum's | capability is being wasted for the life of 8-VSB. If you don't add A-VSB | to 8-VSB you restrict broadcaster such that many of them consider the | future of the OTA spectrum, 2-51, to be irrelevant. Some suggest that | during the actual DTV transition in a few years half of those who now | still depend on OTA will be herded into cable or satellite services | leaving a few die hards who simply don't watch much TV, don't watch any | TV or who steal cable and satellite and therefore don't belong on the | list of those who rely on OTA. I personally would like to see the switch to MPEG4. But I don't want to see a switch in modulation. Why not? Not even to an advanced 8-VSB? There is such a thing. It lost out in China to TD-OFDM but it is infinitely better than what we have. You would not want to upgrade our modulation even if there was no difference in cost between doing so and going with A-VSB and MPEG4? Why????? This would make absolutely no sense to me. Sort of like saying that you would rather stay with your 1976 Buick even though necessary repairs will cost as much as a brand new Lexus and your gas mileage will be only 30% of the Lexus, you won't have the sunroof the Lexus has and your girlfriend will leave you for being so stupid. That my friend is really staying the course. | And how do you count those who don't really rely on OTA though they | don't have cable or satellite or FIOS but actually rely on broadband for | much of their TV and only fall back on OTA occasionally? | | The 15% number of those who still rely on OTA is already very suspect | and getting more so every day. Expect some politician to make a lot of | hay over the argument that this spectrum can do a lot more good for the | US treasury and other uses. Trial balloons have been attempted on this | subject every so often. As the transition nears this will become | headline stuff IMO. Are you somehow trying to make sure OTA survives? Yes I think that free OTA TV is a good thing. I don't like the idea that to have TV you have to pay outrageous sums to an ever smaller group of players who have little or no incentive to keep the cost down. In the UK Freeview has already had major impacts on the likes of SKY owned by Murdock. The current players in free OTA TV have gotten Congress to make them partners by law, must carry, with their cable competitors. They did this when their poor delivery system, NTSC was threatened with extinction first because of its bad reception and second because it could not deliver enough content. Now that law puts current broadcasters in a strange place relative to free OTA broadcasting. They can make a lot of money from cable by charging for their content per sub. Sinclair was asking $42 million up front and a DOLLAR a sub per month from a cable company recently. Why would they be interested in promoting OTA if every customer of OTA is a DOLLAR lost to them a month? It is called conflict of interest. There are other broadcasters who do NOT have must carry in the US. Low Power TV broadcasters. Other than lobby for must carry for themselves, unlikely, they face extinction when the transition occurs. They expect to lose half the small number of customers they now have at best. And that is with them not going digital. If they go digital it would be worse. At the same time in the UK you have satellite programming deserting satellite for Freeview. That is foregoing the cash per sub for free OTA broadcasting. Just the opposite of what is happening here. Why? Because in the UK OTA is growing frantically, insanely and more money is to be made with free OTA. OTA is being reborn. In the US it is dieing. LPTV stations who depend on OTA having no must carry rights are in the process of deserting a sinking ship. Congress will then propose that we sell off this spectrum. The only thing to spoil their plan is the example of free OTA in other countries where it is growing. It will be inconvenient but if the public doesn't care they can do it. | So you are of the opinion that a firmware upgrade makes obsolete go | away. What if the upgrade cost as much as a new receiver? What if it | cost half as much as a new receiver, does that make for half obsolete? | What if a new HD COFDM receiver cost half as much as the upgrade for an | 8-VSB receiver that would otherwise be obsolete? The rules that change to MPEG4 can deal with the cost issue. OTOH, what will we do when MPEG5 comes out? MPEG6? TV sets are going to become computers. Oh wait, they already are. Yes as we proposed in 1999. That generic chips be used so that upgrades could be implemented for some unknown time frame. That time frame would have included now. With a generic chip like the Equator that was available in 2000 we could have upgraded to MPEG4 today no problem. Didn't happen. Can't see the future forever but at least you can plan for a few years. We didn't and are now stuck with old technology. | Even an upgrade that made a current receiver both good for A-VSB and | MPEG4 would still see your use of the spectrum massively inefficient | compared to using the spectrum with a COFDM based modulation or maybe | even with an improved from the bottom 8-VSB solution. How many times bit rate bandwidth does COFDM provide compared to 8VSB? Sinclair demonstrated mobile reception of COFDM HDTV to Congress in 2000 at 19.76 Mbps or .42 Mbps more than 8-VSB and 8-VSB was not mobile. 8-VSB was very lucky to be receivable in that hearing room. Had a guard posted by the window to keep anyone from walking near their antenna and causing breakups. | | So if we decide that we should allow MPEG4 AVC on the last 13% of the | | spectrum that current receivers are still good for you might as well | | reconsider everything. | | Then let's move on up to 2560x1440p60. MPEG4 could do that in 6 Mhz. | | Reconsider, not necessarily go to the nth on every aspect of this. We | could decide that we want to be able to broadcast 1080/60P or that we | want to adopt DMB-T/H, DVB-T/H or even an advanced 8-VSB. After all a | lot of new HDTV's are capable of 1080/60P. The thing is if you accept | the fact that going to MPEG4 and/or A-VSB is akin to making most of a | given current receiver obsolete or most of all current receivers | obsolete then it only makes common sense to take advantage of what is an | opportunity to upgrade as much as possible. I'm convinced that going with MPEG4 is a definite plus. I'm not convinced of COFDM at all. The Chinese were convinced recently after years of fighting it out. Brazil recently chose COFDM. The S. Korean broadcasters refused to use 8-VSB for the first 7 years after it was forced on them by their government and LG. Their OTA is dead also. They are having hearings about what to do about it. Broadcasters there did their own private testing because the government refused to do it and they chose COFDM. Taiwan switched after officially choosing 8-VSB. Argentina chose 8-VSB and then canceled that and are now setting on the fence. They will either go with DVB-T or follow Brazil with ISDB-T, both COFDM. | And broadcasters would love to do just that and the cost to do so would | not be any more than the upgrade to MPEG4 and A-VSB would be. Modulator? PA? power bill? Broadcasters in ALL other countries have faced these and chose COFDM modulations. The power bill is a fiction. No test has shown that there is a difference in the far field with reception at the same power levels. I think that even there COFDM would be easier to receive and receivable by more people than 8-VSB due to multipath than any power differential. The latest I have heard on COFDM is that it now has an advantage over 8-VSB in the lab. | How long do you think the current 8-VSB will last? How do you see things | shaking out as to OTA viewers using 8-VSB OTA receivers? Do you see an | increase or decrease in OTA DTV viewers in the US? A substantial one? Or | should we just ignore OTA 2-51 for the next 50 years? I really don't know where OTA is headed. I do know the _networks_ would prefer to be delivering over satellite and cable, rather than locals. They already have some programming on that route now, anyway. If networks do manage to move everything to satellite/cable, would that be the death knell for broadcasters? It has sounded. | I know of one TV station owner who is about to give up. Sell his | stations to a speculator cheap who is willing to wait out this mess and | make a killing in a few years. On the speculator side the thinking is | that this mess has to be resolved in a reasonable period. The current | owner no longer believes that is possible. Wants to sell cheap before | the transition kills him. And you think COFDM would even made any difference? COFDM would see a rebirth of OTA much like what is happening in most other countries. Like what will be happening in former TV channels above 51 though those will be subscriber services to pay for the spectrum cost. And it may take a while till someone is successful in that space since the biggest players so far are concentrating on cell phones fragmented video. Once someone tries for broadcast TV straight up then watch out. | I have been preaching the dangers to free OTA broadcasting that having | the wrong modulation presents for the last six years and you think I | would find joy in losing that argument? Just so I can say I told you so? | It would be a lot more satisfying if I were to have some effect on | changing the modulation and seeing the ensuing incredible rapid rebirth | of OTA broadcasting in the US. And that would include a lot of HD using | MPEG4, a lot of 480P that was captured by very good 720P cameras and | upconverted to a very good 720P/1080i/1080P at the set. I do suspect OTA will die in a couple decades (and that it will even be obvious in a few years). But I also believe it has nothing to do with the modulation, and everything to do with the programming. About the only things worthwhile OTA are local news (HD not needed) and PBS. There are some worthwhile national networks on the satellites and cable to fill the void (IMHO, they are Animal Planet, Discovery, Food Channel, HGTV, History Channel, Travel Channel, Weather Channel, and some news channels). How are you going to explain why in most other countries OTA will be incredibly successful and be killing satellite and cable? I know the US is so incredibly different than anywhere else. Our geography is different and people are so rich they don't care if their cable bill is $500 a month. But it will not be so easy to explain because I think the natural progression will see spectrum above 51 offering free OTA DTV using COFDM sometime in the not so distant future and it too will be very successful. A direct comparison between using COFDM and 8-VSB. That is if the spectrum below 51 is even being used with 8-VSB for anything then. I believe what is happening in the UK is exportable even for use on high priced auctioned spectrum. After all once you have paid for the spectrum that cost is past. Only the most profitable use of the spectrum is warranted no matter what you paid. That is free OTA DTV using COFDM just like in the UK on auctioned spectrum. For that matter it is only a matter of time before all cell phone DTV broadcasting now in the early stages, Qualcomm, Crown Castle and Hiwire become subsumed into a flat priced cell phone service, just another must have part of your cell phone experience, just another service that must be offered to stay competitive, just another cost without any direct return except the knowledge that if you don't offer it your out of business. IMO. Bob Miller |
1080P Standard?
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:03:14 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | wrote: [...] | I'm curious, what happens to the higher COFDM power peaks if the PA or | other transmitter stage clips them off to the point where COFDM has a | peak to average ratio like that of 8-VSB? Wouldn't that produce a lot | of intermodulation effects in and out of the channel? | | Not an engineer but my take is that worst case, to solve any problem | having to do with peak to average power differences between COFDM and | 8-VSB you would have to lower COFDM power slightly. The other take I | have been given is that the problem is of little or no significance. | Lowering power a smidgen eliminates the need to clip though that is | over rated as a problem as well I am told. I've read estimates that the power reduction would be somewhere from 2db to 6db, depending on type of coverage and terrain. That would mean fringe reception would be a problem, and gaps would have to be filled in. That means the channeling would have to be juggled yet again so channels can be available for the fringe transmitters. So it would be a choice between either changing channel or going up about 3db in peak power to maintain the same average power. Such a PA stage would also waste more power, which will show up on the electric bill forever. | Broadcasters would, broadcasters have, in all cases where given the | choice except the US where their decision is colored by must carry and | where there threatened and intimidated with the loss of their spectrum | (all of it) or their must carry rights, chose COFDM over 8-VSB. I see the must carry rule is applicable to the relationship between cable and the cable customers, not the broadcasters. Of course broadcasters do benefit from such a rule. But the cable customers do, as well, to ensure that the choice of NOT putting up an antenna is available to them. And I fully support a full multi-channel must carry, as well, in the cases where the cable system chooses to carry the station in digital (analog carriage would only require the main subchannel, and one or the other alone would meet the MCMC rule as I would write it). One exception I would support is a cable system may elect to NOT carry any broadcast at all (e.g. operate as an OTA supplement). I would also favor MCMC rules to apply to satellite carriers as well. | All of them will have to supply STB's or deliver content so compelling | that the customer will buy such. Funny I don't see any of them taking | advantage of the coming ubiquity of 8-VSB receivers due to the mandate. Funny I don't see a wide choice of products on the market, yet. I think the time is long past due to impose multi-million dollar fines on the manufacturers. | I wonder why? Why doesn't any new broadcaster consider 8-VSB what with | all its advantages. The first broadcasters in that space will be going | after the cell phone market which is what we proposed to them since it | was in their line of work. But we would have gone after a broader market | that would include all fixed, portable and mobile devices. The third | entrant, Hiwire, suggest they will do just that with their 12 MHz. We | suggested that to them also. They were laughing for the first few years. | | And Hiwire, which proposed DTV mobile, will not be considering 8-VSB | even with A-VSB. If the target market is mobile, COFDM makes more sense. There will be many more smaller transmitters, too. And they have a fixed national spectrum so they can manage it as they see fit. | I'm also curious why you aren't using MPEG-4 for that video on your web | page. | | Good question, maybe I will change it. It was a simple video meant to | show a particular party what we were doing. Only later did I think of | showing it to anyone else. The compression was not important. I would have been happy with MPEG2. Hell, even DV would have been fine by me (though it would be slow to download). But Flash? Phooey! If you have video you want to let everyone see, use MPEG. MPEG4 should be fine as long as it encoded with a non-broken codec. Don't understand your "But Flash?". We are using WMV as in www.viacel.com/bob.wmv That is closer to MPEG4 H.264 than it is to MPEG2. Have to suck up to MS like everyone else also. Bob Miller |
1080P Standard?
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:31:35 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote: | Converter boxes by law can have not one IOTA of extras or they do not | qualify for the subsidy. There will be no converter boxes built that do | NOT qualify for the subsidy IMO. Converter boxes sans any change in the | law will not have ANY capabilities at all but the reception of SD and HD | signals via 8-VSB. You can include a remote. I don't think that would rule out a modular design. | The question is do you, does anyone, think that these converter boxes | should include MPEG4 and A-VSB capability since a good part of the | spectrum that they will receive will be devoted to A-VSB and MPEG4? If | so than someone should be rattling the cage down in DC to make it happen. Why do you say "will"? Do you know MPEG4 will happen? | When the possibility of JUST allowing COFDM as a modulation in the US | was proposed all hell broke loose about the sacred 8-VSB receivers that | had already been sold by then, middle of 2000. All 10,000 of them. Now | we, Congress, proposes to spend a couple of billion on converter boxes | that will be obsolete virtually as soon as they are distributed. | | Or maybe Congress in its wisdom will rewrite the law making MPEG4 and | A-VSB prohibited. Thats the spirit, when in doubt go backwards. They did | it when confronted with the obvious superiority of COFDM. As far as I know, the rules require ATSC and ATSC does not have MPEG4. Now, I would not mind having MPEG4. I realize the compatibility and upgrade issues involved. But I also believe they are substantially less than an upgrade in the modulation since the latter would affect a lot more engineering issues such as transmitter coverage areas. I'll stick with 8VSB and accept MPEG4. | I'm sure if things had been changed to go to COFDM in 2000, not all that | many sets would be obsoleted. Even that could have depended on modularity. | | Very very few sets, mostly STBs and broadcasters were willing to | compensate those affected. Sinclair would have replaced all 8-VSB | receivers in their coverage area. I find it very hard to believe very many broadcasters were willing to do that. I even find it hard to believe that about Sinclair. | I personally would like to see the switch to MPEG4. But I don't want | to see a switch in modulation. | | Why not? Not even to an advanced 8-VSB? There is such a thing. It lost | out in China to TD-OFDM but it is infinitely better than what we have. | You would not want to upgrade our modulation even if there was no | difference in cost between doing so and going with A-VSB and MPEG4? | | Why????? This would make absolutely no sense to me. Sort of like saying | that you would rather stay with your 1976 Buick even though necessary | repairs will cost as much as a brand new Lexus and your gas mileage will | be only 30% of the Lexus, you won't have the sunroof the Lexus has and | your girlfriend will leave you for being so stupid. | | That my friend is really staying the course. It's not about staying the course. If COFDM were the current modulation, and an opportunity existed to switch, at no cost, or a small cost, to something more dense like 8-VSB, 16-VSB, 256-QAM, etc., I would be in favor of that. I don't have any details on A-VSB so I can't say anything about that. | Are you somehow trying to make sure OTA survives? | | Yes I think that free OTA TV is a good thing. I don't like the idea that | to have TV you have to pay outrageous sums to an ever smaller group of | players who have little or no incentive to keep the cost down. In the UK | Freeview has already had major impacts on the likes of SKY owned by | Murdock. | | The current players in free OTA TV have gotten Congress to make them | partners by law, must carry, with their cable competitors. They did this | when their poor delivery system, NTSC was threatened with extinction | first because of its bad reception and second because it could not | deliver enough content. | | Now that law puts current broadcasters in a strange place relative to | free OTA broadcasting. They can make a lot of money from cable by | charging for their content per sub. Sinclair was asking $42 million up | front and a DOLLAR a sub per month from a cable company recently. Why | would they be interested in promoting OTA if every customer of OTA is a | DOLLAR lost to them a month? If Sinclair wants to do that, then maybe they should sell off their stations and buy a few satellite transponders and build some new great satellite networks. | There are other broadcasters who do NOT have must carry in the US. Low | Power TV broadcasters. Other than lobby for must carry for themselves, | unlikely, they face extinction when the transition occurs. They expect | to lose half the small number of customers they now have at best. And | that is with them not going digital. If they go digital it would be worse. Looks like they will be going digital by flash cut, though I don't know if it will be the same date. Given the lateness of the LP rules, I'm guessing they will have a separate but-change date. | At the same time in the UK you have satellite programming deserting | satellite for Freeview. That is foregoing the cash per sub for free OTA | broadcasting. Just the opposite of what is happening here. Why? Because | in the UK OTA is growing frantically, insanely and more money is to be | made with free OTA. The channel capacity of OTA isn't as great as that of satellite, especially when considering high definition. I don't see that as a viable option for the number of channels we have, and the number of people wanting them in HD. But I wouldn't mind a satellite based "Freeview". | OTA is being reborn. In the US it is dieing. LPTV stations who depend on | OTA having no must carry rights are in the process of deserting a | sinking ship. Then we should support full MC. | Congress will then propose that we sell off this spectrum. The only | thing to spoil their plan is the example of free OTA in other countries | where it is growing. It will be inconvenient but if the public doesn't | care they can do it. And what will such sold off spectrum be used for? | | So you are of the opinion that a firmware upgrade makes obsolete go | | away. What if the upgrade cost as much as a new receiver? What if it | | cost half as much as a new receiver, does that make for half obsolete? | | What if a new HD COFDM receiver cost half as much as the upgrade for an | | 8-VSB receiver that would otherwise be obsolete? | | The rules that change to MPEG4 can deal with the cost issue. | | OTOH, what will we do when MPEG5 comes out? MPEG6? | | TV sets are going to become computers. Oh wait, they already are. | | Yes as we proposed in 1999. That generic chips be used so that upgrades | could be implemented for some unknown time frame. That time frame would | have included now. With a generic chip like the Equator that was | available in 2000 we could have upgraded to MPEG4 today no problem. | Didn't happen. Can't see the future forever but at least you can plan | for a few years. We didn't and are now stuck with old technology. So why did the manufacturers choose not to make their receivers upgradable? | | Even an upgrade that made a current receiver both good for A-VSB and | | MPEG4 would still see your use of the spectrum massively inefficient | | compared to using the spectrum with a COFDM based modulation or maybe | | even with an improved from the bottom 8-VSB solution. | | How many times bit rate bandwidth does COFDM provide compared to 8VSB? | | Sinclair demonstrated mobile reception of COFDM HDTV to Congress in 2000 | at 19.76 Mbps or .42 Mbps more than 8-VSB and 8-VSB was not mobile. | 8-VSB was very lucky to be receivable in that hearing room. Had a guard | posted by the window to keep anyone from walking near their antenna and | causing breakups. ATSC is closer to 19.3926584597511115083 mbps. And why is mobile important to me? So I can watch my favorite soaps in high definition while driving? | I'm convinced that going with MPEG4 is a definite plus. I'm not convinced | of COFDM at all. | | The Chinese were convinced recently after years of fighting it out. | Brazil recently chose COFDM. The S. Korean broadcasters refused to use | 8-VSB for the first 7 years after it was forced on them by their | government and LG. Their OTA is dead also. They are having hearings | about what to do about it. Broadcasters there did their own private | testing because the government refused to do it and they chose COFDM. S. Korean broadcasters probably have crap programming like they do here in the USA. | Taiwan switched after officially choosing 8-VSB. Argentina chose 8-VSB | and then canceled that and are now setting on the fence. They will | either go with DVB-T or follow Brazil with ISDB-T, both COFDM. Maybe the way they use TV makes COFDM more appropriate for them. | | And broadcasters would love to do just that and the cost to do so would | | not be any more than the upgrade to MPEG4 and A-VSB would be. | | Modulator? PA? power bill? | | Broadcasters in ALL other countries have faced these and chose COFDM | modulations. The power bill is a fiction. No test has shown that there | is a difference in the far field with reception at the same power | levels. I think that even there COFDM would be easier to receive and | receivable by more people than 8-VSB due to multipath than any power | differential. The latest I have heard on COFDM is that it now has an | advantage over 8-VSB in the lab. What test was done in the "far field"? I call it "fringe" at 125 miles. | I really don't know where OTA is headed. I do know the _networks_ would | prefer to be delivering over satellite and cable, rather than locals. | They already have some programming on that route now, anyway. If networks | do manage to move everything to satellite/cable, would that be the death | knell for broadcasters? | | It has sounded. If national programming is better sent over satellite, then so be it. If OTA dies for that reason, so be it. At least it would be a real reson. | COFDM would see a rebirth of OTA much like what is happening in most | other countries. Like what will be happening in former TV channels above | 51 though those will be subscriber services to pay for the spectrum | cost. And it may take a while till someone is successful in that space | since the biggest players so far are concentrating on cell phones | fragmented video. Once someone tries for broadcast TV straight up then | watch out. When they offer the full lineup of programming I like, let me know. | | I have been preaching the dangers to free OTA broadcasting that having | | the wrong modulation presents for the last six years and you think I | | would find joy in losing that argument? Just so I can say I told you so? | | It would be a lot more satisfying if I were to have some effect on | | changing the modulation and seeing the ensuing incredible rapid rebirth | | of OTA broadcasting in the US. And that would include a lot of HD using | | MPEG4, a lot of 480P that was captured by very good 720P cameras and | | upconverted to a very good 720P/1080i/1080P at the set. | | I do suspect OTA will die in a couple decades (and that it will even be | obvious in a few years). But I also believe it has nothing to do with | the modulation, and everything to do with the programming. About the | only things worthwhile OTA are local news (HD not needed) and PBS. There | are some worthwhile national networks on the satellites and cable to fill | the void (IMHO, they are Animal Planet, Discovery, Food Channel, HGTV, | History Channel, Travel Channel, Weather Channel, and some news channels). | | How are you going to explain why in most other countries OTA will be | incredibly successful and be killing satellite and cable? Because in other countries, they don't have so much of a hunger for 1000 HD channels. Most other countries don't allow a few big conglomerates to run everything. But they consider that their God-ginve right to do that here. | I know the US is so incredibly different than anywhere else. Our | geography is different and people are so rich they don't care if their | cable bill is $500 a month. | | But it will not be so easy to explain because I think the natural | progression will see spectrum above 51 offering free OTA DTV using COFDM | sometime in the not so distant future and it too will be very | successful. A direct comparison between using COFDM and 8-VSB. That is | if the spectrum below 51 is even being used with 8-VSB for anything then. If it is indeed free, I might be interested in it. But why would I be more interested in it over the dying programming below channel 52? That digital TV I buy will be able to receive this signal, right? | I believe what is happening in the UK is exportable even for use on high | priced auctioned spectrum. After all once you have paid for the spectrum | that cost is past. Only the most profitable use of the spectrum is | warranted no matter what you paid. We'll see how they use it. I hope they put something more attractive on it than what OTA has now. | That is free OTA DTV using COFDM just like in the UK on auctioned | spectrum. For that matter it is only a matter of time before all cell | phone DTV broadcasting now in the early stages, Qualcomm, Crown Castle | and Hiwire become subsumed into a flat priced cell phone service, just | another must have part of your cell phone experience, just another | service that must be offered to stay competitive, just another cost | without any direct return except the knowledge that if you don't offer | it your out of business. IMO. And your point is? How much HD programming is going to be coming through these channels? -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:55:08 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| Don't understand your "But Flash?". We are using WMV as in | www.viacel.com/bob.wmv The main page embeds the URL http://www.viacel.com/viacel.swf by means of a relative name in the EMBED element. I see no use of WMV there. I see no reference to "bob.wmv"/ ================================================== =========================== [email protected]:/home/phil 784 lynx -mime_header http://www.viacel.com/ HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 09:47:35 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.53 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.53 OpenSSL/0.9.8a PHP/4.3.10 Last-Modified: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:29:37 GMT ETag: "107eed-415-4723a640" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 1045 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html HTMLHEADTITLEwelcome to viacel/TITLE /HEADBODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF"center TABLE BORDER="0" HEIGHT="100%"TR TD VALIGN="top" ALIGN="top" HEIGHT="15%" /TD /TRTRTD VALIGN="middle" ALIGN="middle" HEIGHT="85%"!-- URL's used in the movie--A HREF=http://www.viacel.com/A A HREF=mailto: /A !-- text used in the movie--OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://active.macromedia.com/flash2/cabs/swflash.cab#version=4,0,0,0" ID=viacel WIDTH=500 HEIGHT=300 PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="viacel.swf" PARAM NAME=loop VALUE=false PARAM NAME=menu VALUE=false PARAM NAME=quality VALUE=high PARAM NAME=scale VALUE=noborder PARAM NAME=bgcolor VALUE=#FFFFFF EMBED src="viacel.swf" loop=false menu=false quality=high scale=noborder bgcolor=#FFFFFF WIDTH=500 HEIGHT=300 TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"/EMBED/OBJECT/TD/TR/TABLE/center/BODY/HTML [email protected]:/home/phil 785 ================================================== =========================== | That is closer to MPEG4 H.264 than it is to MPEG2. Have to suck up to MS | like everyone else also. No you don't have to. Just use MPEG. Just tell Bill to lick penguin feet. Still, WMV is usable in most cases. But why the main page refers to a Flash thing, I have no idea. Maybe you need to have a talk with your webmaster? -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:31:35 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | wrote: | Converter boxes by law can have not one IOTA of extras or they do not | qualify for the subsidy. There will be no converter boxes built that do | NOT qualify for the subsidy IMO. Converter boxes sans any change in the | law will not have ANY capabilities at all but the reception of SD and HD | signals via 8-VSB. You can include a remote. I don't think that would rule out a modular design. No one will take a chance on building a low cost, low profit margin converter box that will include anything that might be construed as not complying with the law and therefor at risk of not being supported by the subsidy. In fact I wonder if any company will even risk building this POS or anyone will want to buy it even if it is built. I expect that before the deadline Congress will be in a dither over where are the manufacturers and things will change at the last minute. | The question is do you, does anyone, think that these converter boxes | should include MPEG4 and A-VSB capability since a good part of the | spectrum that they will receive will be devoted to A-VSB and MPEG4? If | so than someone should be rattling the cage down in DC to make it happen. Why do you say "will"? Do you know MPEG4 will happen? The only venture that tried to do something with OTA, USDTV, was about to use MPEG4. I don't know but assume that broadcasters, who have spent a lot of time and millions on getting multicast must carry will want at some time to maximize the value of their spectrum. They are frantically working on getting A-VSB approved and they only talk of using MPEG4 with that. So they may use MPEG4 with the rest of the spectrum other than that devoted to one SD program or they may use it with A-VSB. Either way part of the spectrum will be used for that which will not be received via 8-VSB current receivers making them partially obsolete. How partially who knows. But if these other ventures are more successful than the 8-VSB part then expect the part of the spectrum devoted to them to be maximized and that devoted to 8-VSB to be minimized, ala, talking head or cartoon SD. | When the possibility of JUST allowing COFDM as a modulation in the US | was proposed all hell broke loose about the sacred 8-VSB receivers that | had already been sold by then, middle of 2000. All 10,000 of them. Now | we, Congress, proposes to spend a couple of billion on converter boxes | that will be obsolete virtually as soon as they are distributed. | | Or maybe Congress in its wisdom will rewrite the law making MPEG4 and | A-VSB prohibited. Thats the spirit, when in doubt go backwards. They did | it when confronted with the obvious superiority of COFDM. As far as I know, the rules require ATSC and ATSC does not have MPEG4. Now, I would not mind having MPEG4. I realize the compatibility and upgrade issues involved. But I also believe they are substantially less than an upgrade in the modulation since the latter would affect a lot more engineering issues such as transmitter coverage areas. I'll stick with 8VSB and accept MPEG4. Simply not true but whatever. There are no coverage issues as Australia and all other countries who actually tested will attest to. | I'm sure if things had been changed to go to COFDM in 2000, not all that | many sets would be obsoleted. Even that could have depended on modularity. | | Very very few sets, mostly STBs and broadcasters were willing to | compensate those affected. Sinclair would have replaced all 8-VSB | receivers in their coverage area. I find it very hard to believe very many broadcasters were willing to do that. I even find it hard to believe that about Sinclair. At the time it would not have cost that much. Would cost more now. | I personally would like to see the switch to MPEG4. But I don't want | to see a switch in modulation. | | Why not? Not even to an advanced 8-VSB? There is such a thing. It lost | out in China to TD-OFDM but it is infinitely better than what we have. | You would not want to upgrade our modulation even if there was no | difference in cost between doing so and going with A-VSB and MPEG4? | | Why????? This would make absolutely no sense to me. Sort of like saying | that you would rather stay with your 1976 Buick even though necessary | repairs will cost as much as a brand new Lexus and your gas mileage will | be only 30% of the Lexus, you won't have the sunroof the Lexus has and | your girlfriend will leave you for being so stupid. | | That my friend is really staying the course. It's not about staying the course. If COFDM were the current modulation, and an opportunity existed to switch, at no cost, or a small cost, to something more dense like 8-VSB, 16-VSB, 256-QAM, etc., I would be in favor of that. Don't see anyone in the world considering switching from any COFDM system. Not even any discussions. Can't even imagine such a thing. I don't have any details on A-VSB so I can't say anything about that. | Are you somehow trying to make sure OTA survives? | | Yes I think that free OTA TV is a good thing. I don't like the idea that | to have TV you have to pay outrageous sums to an ever smaller group of | players who have little or no incentive to keep the cost down. In the UK | Freeview has already had major impacts on the likes of SKY owned by | Murdock. | | The current players in free OTA TV have gotten Congress to make them | partners by law, must carry, with their cable competitors. They did this | when their poor delivery system, NTSC was threatened with extinction | first because of its bad reception and second because it could not | deliver enough content. | | Now that law puts current broadcasters in a strange place relative to | free OTA broadcasting. They can make a lot of money from cable by | charging for their content per sub. Sinclair was asking $42 million up | front and a DOLLAR a sub per month from a cable company recently. Why | would they be interested in promoting OTA if every customer of OTA is a | DOLLAR lost to them a month? If Sinclair wants to do that, then maybe they should sell off their stations and buy a few satellite transponders and build some new great satellite networks. Why should they sell off their stations when they can collect a dollar a sub from cable? | There are other broadcasters who do NOT have must carry in the US. Low | Power TV broadcasters. Other than lobby for must carry for themselves, | unlikely, they face extinction when the transition occurs. They expect | to lose half the small number of customers they now have at best. And | that is with them not going digital. If they go digital it would be worse. Looks like they will be going digital by flash cut, though I don't know if it will be the same date. Given the lateness of the LP rules, I'm guessing they will have a separate but-change date. They will be marginalized by 8-VSB and hopefully just fade away. My take on FCC intentions. The FCC shows no interest in protecting the OTA spectrum. Their job as I see it is to marginalize all free OTA spectrum with the object of finding a way to legally co-opt current full power broadcasters with some form of must carry that is divorced from any actual broadcast requirement and then sell off their spectrum, channels 2-51. Note the allowance of power line deliver of broadband and the allowance of the free use of unused TV spectrum, 2-51 by smart radios. Both are hotly contested by broadcasters as interfering with their broadcast. Doesn't seem to have any effect on the FCC intentions. The FCC has privately written off free OTA spectrum and is in a holding pattern waiting for the correct political timing to eliminate it. One fly in their ointment is the success overseas of other free to air broadcasting. But the US public is asleep and if TV doesn't cover TV they may never know what their free OTA spectrum could do. | At the same time in the UK you have satellite programming deserting | satellite for Freeview. That is foregoing the cash per sub for free OTA | broadcasting. Just the opposite of what is happening here. Why? Because | in the UK OTA is growing frantically, insanely and more money is to be | made with free OTA. The channel capacity of OTA isn't as great as that of satellite, especially when considering high definition. I don't see that as a viable option for the number of channels we have, and the number of people wanting them in HD. But I wouldn't mind a satellite based "Freeview". They have that to in the UK. As to the capacity of OTA spectrum. It is greater than you think. Most of what we watch on TV is prerecorded. Doesn't matter when it is delivered if it is recorded at the receive site and record storage cost are approaching zero. All part of our concept since 1999. If you are using all the spectrum available in a given market 24/7 you can more than compete with cable or satellite and be more reliable at less cost. The cost of maintaining the broadcast spectrum is lower than the gas cost of the cable company. | OTA is being reborn. In the US it is dieing. LPTV stations who depend on | OTA having no must carry rights are in the process of deserting a | sinking ship. Then we should support full MC. | Congress will then propose that we sell off this spectrum. The only | thing to spoil their plan is the example of free OTA in other countries | where it is growing. It will be inconvenient but if the public doesn't | care they can do it. And what will such sold off spectrum be used for? It will be used by new broadcasters using COFDM modulations who buy it at auction. Before the FCC auctions #44 and #49 which auctioned off channels 54, 55 and 59 it was thought that they would be used for wireless two way Internet. In fact the licenses for channels 54 and 59 were designed just for that and the power limitations where lower than what was thought broadcasting would require, 50 kW max. At that time I predicted that ALL this spectrum would be used for broadcasting using COFDM modulations. Qualcomm was first and will use channel 55 for broadcasting. Aloha Partners bought most of 54 and 59 and for a number of years preached that they would do wireless broadband. I predicted that they would either change their minds or if they proceeded would fail and sell their spectrum to someone who would do broadcasting. They were smarter than I thought. They have announced that they will now do, tada, broadcasting, and not to cell phones but as we suggested to all mobile and fixed devices. | | So you are of the opinion that a firmware upgrade makes obsolete go | | away. What if the upgrade cost as much as a new receiver? What if it | | cost half as much as a new receiver, does that make for half obsolete? | | What if a new HD COFDM receiver cost half as much as the upgrade for an | | 8-VSB receiver that would otherwise be obsolete? | | The rules that change to MPEG4 can deal with the cost issue. | | OTOH, what will we do when MPEG5 comes out? MPEG6? | | TV sets are going to become computers. Oh wait, they already are. | | Yes as we proposed in 1999. That generic chips be used so that upgrades | could be implemented for some unknown time frame. That time frame would | have included now. With a generic chip like the Equator that was | available in 2000 we could have upgraded to MPEG4 today no problem. | Didn't happen. Can't see the future forever but at least you can plan | for a few years. We didn't and are now stuck with old technology. So why did the manufacturers choose not to make their receivers upgradable? Because it would have cost a few pennies more. Because they barely made receivers at all. Very half hearted effort still. | | Even an upgrade that made a current receiver both good for A-VSB and | | MPEG4 would still see your use of the spectrum massively inefficient | | compared to using the spectrum with a COFDM based modulation or maybe | | even with an improved from the bottom 8-VSB solution. | | How many times bit rate bandwidth does COFDM provide compared to 8VSB? | | Sinclair demonstrated mobile reception of COFDM HDTV to Congress in 2000 | at 19.76 Mbps or .42 Mbps more than 8-VSB and 8-VSB was not mobile. | 8-VSB was very lucky to be receivable in that hearing room. Had a guard | posted by the window to keep anyone from walking near their antenna and | causing breakups. ATSC is closer to 19.3926584597511115083 mbps. Ok 0.3673415402 not 0.42 And why is mobile important to me? So I can watch my favorite soaps in high definition while driving? First DVB-T COFDM was not designed for portable, it was designed for good reception in the presence of multipath, the nemesis of OTA analog broadcasting from day one. The fact that it can be received mobile or portable is a fringe benefit. The point is that COFDM is far better for reception. That is why you want it. If you want to watch HD mobile you can. You don't have to be driving, you could be a passenger in a car, train, boat etc. etc. That argument is painfully thin and not relevant. Its not funny anymore either. | I'm convinced that going with MPEG4 is a definite plus. I'm not convinced | of COFDM at all. | | The Chinese were convinced recently after years of fighting it out. | Brazil recently chose COFDM. The S. Korean broadcasters refused to use | 8-VSB for the first 7 years after it was forced on them by their | government and LG. Their OTA is dead also. They are having hearings | about what to do about it. Broadcasters there did their own private | testing because the government refused to do it and they chose COFDM. S. Korean broadcasters probably have crap programming like they do here in the USA. | Taiwan switched after officially choosing 8-VSB. Argentina chose 8-VSB | and then canceled that and are now setting on the fence. They will | either go with DVB-T or follow Brazil with ISDB-T, both COFDM. Maybe the way they use TV makes COFDM more appropriate for them. They find that OTA TV is important and their OTA broadcasters actually depend on their OTA spectrum for survival. That is how they use it differently. US broadcasters have a conflict of interest with their OTA customers. They would prefer that they received their OTA broadcast via cable and paid them a buck a month. | | And broadcasters would love to do just that and the cost to do so would | | not be any more than the upgrade to MPEG4 and A-VSB would be. | | Modulator? PA? power bill? | | Broadcasters in ALL other countries have faced these and chose COFDM | modulations. The power bill is a fiction. No test has shown that there | is a difference in the far field with reception at the same power | levels. I think that even there COFDM would be easier to receive and | receivable by more people than 8-VSB due to multipath than any power | differential. The latest I have heard on COFDM is that it now has an | advantage over 8-VSB in the lab. What test was done in the "far field"? I call it "fringe" at 125 miles. The typical "B" grade for a broadcast station is 60 miles. At 125 miles it presents problems of interference for other co-channel broadcast. Far field would be at the "B" grade. | I really don't know where OTA is headed. I do know the _networks_ would | prefer to be delivering over satellite and cable, rather than locals. | They already have some programming on that route now, anyway. If networks | do manage to move everything to satellite/cable, would that be the death | knell for broadcasters? | | It has sounded. If national programming is better sent over satellite, then so be it. If OTA dies for that reason, so be it. At least it would be a real reson. OTA free broadcasting will die because of the modulation and the disinterest of broadcasters in supporting decent reception when they can make a buck a month per cable subscriber. OTA is kicking but in countries with high cable and satellite use because it is free and is receivable easily with simple antennas and inexpensive receivers. | COFDM would see a rebirth of OTA much like what is happening in most | other countries. Like what will be happening in former TV channels above | 51 though those will be subscriber services to pay for the spectrum | cost. And it may take a while till someone is successful in that space | since the biggest players so far are concentrating on cell phones | fragmented video. Once someone tries for broadcast TV straight up then | watch out. When they offer the full lineup of programming I like, let me know. | | I have been preaching the dangers to free OTA broadcasting that having | | the wrong modulation presents for the last six years and you think I | | would find joy in losing that argument? Just so I can say I told you so? | | It would be a lot more satisfying if I were to have some effect on | | changing the modulation and seeing the ensuing incredible rapid rebirth | | of OTA broadcasting in the US. And that would include a lot of HD using | | MPEG4, a lot of 480P that was captured by very good 720P cameras and | | upconverted to a very good 720P/1080i/1080P at the set. | | I do suspect OTA will die in a couple decades (and that it will even be | obvious in a few years). But I also believe it has nothing to do with | the modulation, and everything to do with the programming. About the | only things worthwhile OTA are local news (HD not needed) and PBS. There | are some worthwhile national networks on the satellites and cable to fill | the void (IMHO, they are Animal Planet, Discovery, Food Channel, HGTV, | History Channel, Travel Channel, Weather Channel, and some news channels). | | How are you going to explain why in most other countries OTA will be | incredibly successful and be killing satellite and cable? Because in other countries, they don't have so much of a hunger for 1000 HD channels. Most other countries don't allow a few big conglomerates to run everything. But they consider that their God-ginve right to do that here. In the digital age there is no need for 1000 channels of delivery of mostly prerecorded content. The Internet will do that. OTA is more than adequate to deliver all the real time TV required. And with low cost storage it will deliver the equivalent of a 1000 channels when coupled with broadband. I don't see how high cost cable and satellite survive in the low cost world of broadband and OTA. | I know the US is so incredibly different than anywhere else. Our | geography is different and people are so rich they don't care if their | cable bill is $500 a month. | | But it will not be so easy to explain because I think the natural | progression will see spectrum above 51 offering free OTA DTV using COFDM | sometime in the not so distant future and it too will be very | successful. A direct comparison between using COFDM and 8-VSB. That is | if the spectrum below 51 is even being used with 8-VSB for anything then. If it is indeed free, I might be interested in it. But why would I be more interested in it over the dying programming below channel 52? That digital TV I buy will be able to receive this signal, right? | I believe what is happening in the UK is exportable even for use on high | priced auctioned spectrum. After all once you have paid for the spectrum | that cost is past. Only the most profitable use of the spectrum is | warranted no matter what you paid. We'll see how they use it. I hope they put something more attractive on it than what OTA has now. | That is free OTA DTV using COFDM just like in the UK on auctioned | spectrum. For that matter it is only a matter of time before all cell | phone DTV broadcasting now in the early stages, Qualcomm, Crown Castle | and Hiwire become subsumed into a flat priced cell phone service, just | another must have part of your cell phone experience, just another | service that must be offered to stay competitive, just another cost | without any direct return except the knowledge that if you don't offer | it your out of business. IMO. And your point is? How much HD programming is going to be coming through these channels? After the auction of channels 52, 53, 56, 57 and 58 you can expect, with proper set up to be able to receive all the TV you addiction will stand via COFDM based services. Not to cell phones because this spectrum will be addressing all mobile and fixed devices. The Qualcomm spectrum being the only possible exception. And their spectrum will be just added to the mix. That is some player who will have more than one channel will take over the Qualcomm space and either convert it to higher bit rate content or just continue it as Mediaflow to cell phones. It will not be a stand alone service for long. It has to become more universal, that is, higher bit rate, more like normal TV, or it will not survive. After the later auction of channels 2-51 you can expect a lot of free OTA COFDM based everything and a radical change in FIOS, cable and satellite. They don't survive, everything goes wireless. Fiber, cable and satellite are all to expensive to maintain. Wireless rules for everything. IMO. Bob Miller |
1080P Standard?
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:03:14 GMT Bob Miller wrote: | wrote: [...] | I'm curious, what happens to the higher COFDM power peaks if the PA or | other transmitter stage clips them off to the point where COFDM has a | peak to average ratio like that of 8-VSB? Wouldn't that produce a lot | of intermodulation effects in and out of the channel? | | Not an engineer but my take is that worst case, to solve any problem | having to do with peak to average power differences between COFDM and | 8-VSB you would have to lower COFDM power slightly. The other take I | have been given is that the problem is of little or no significance. | Lowering power a smidgen eliminates the need to clip though that is | over rated as a problem as well I am told. I've read estimates that the power reduction would be somewhere from 2db to 6db, depending on type of coverage and terrain. That would mean fringe reception would be a problem, and gaps would have to be filled in. That means the channeling would have to be juggled yet again so channels can be available for the fringe transmitters. So it would be a choice between either changing channel or going up about 3db in peak power to maintain the same average power. Such a PA stage would also waste more power, which will show up on the electric bill forever. First I do not accept your theory that their is a power problem. Second in the fringe area, far field, if there were a problem it could be handled with on channel repeaters. No need for more channels which is a problem so far with 8-VSB. There are not enough channels available in the DTV universe for the repeaters, on other spectrum (channels) that 8-VSB requires. This problem does not exist with COFDM DVB-Ts ability to use on channel repeaters. In fact I would propose that, indeed, use on channel repeaters with a much reduced power level for the central transmitter to better sculpt the coverage area more precisely, and reduce total power use by a factor of 10. Current, fry the pigeons, power levels for 8-VSB are creating interference with other co-channels which have not been fully realized since they are masked by low power transmitters authorized by the FCC to save money for broadcasters during the transition but which, conveniently also put off dealing with the looming interference problems. | Broadcasters would, broadcasters have, in all cases where given the | choice except the US where their decision is colored by must carry and | where there threatened and intimidated with the loss of their spectrum | (all of it) or their must carry rights, chose COFDM over 8-VSB. I see the must carry rule is applicable to the relationship between cable and the cable customers, not the broadcasters. Of course broadcasters do benefit from such a rule. But the cable customers do, as well, to ensure that the choice of NOT putting up an antenna is available to them. And I fully support a full multi-channel must carry, as well, in the cases where the cable system chooses to carry the station in digital (analog carriage would only require the main subchannel, and one or the other alone would meet the MCMC rule as I would write it). One exception I would support is a cable system may elect to NOT carry any broadcast at all (e.g. operate as an OTA supplement). I would also favor MCMC rules to apply to satellite carriers as well. I favor a switch in modulation an the elimination of all must carry rules. No need for them. What we need is more competition between cable, FIOS, broadband, OTA and satellite not less. And in my world, one where OTA works ubiquitously with the best compression standards available and upgradeable just like cable and satellite can do, broadcasters would not only not be trying to get cable to carry their content, they would be prohibiting such carriage for their competitive advantage and putting FIOS, cable and satellite out of business. | All of them will have to supply STB's or deliver content so compelling | that the customer will buy such. Funny I don't see any of them taking | advantage of the coming ubiquity of 8-VSB receivers due to the mandate. Funny I don't see a wide choice of products on the market, yet. I think the time is long past due to impose multi-million dollar fines on the manufacturers. Less and less of a free market and more mandates. Thats the spirit. That will get it done. | I wonder why? Why doesn't any new broadcaster consider 8-VSB what with | all its advantages. The first broadcasters in that space will be going | after the cell phone market which is what we proposed to them since it | was in their line of work. But we would have gone after a broader market | that would include all fixed, portable and mobile devices. The third | entrant, Hiwire, suggest they will do just that with their 12 MHz. We | suggested that to them also. They were laughing for the first few years. | | And Hiwire, which proposed DTV mobile, will not be considering 8-VSB | even with A-VSB. If the target market is mobile, COFDM makes more sense. There will be many more smaller transmitters, too. And they have a fixed national spectrum so they can manage it as they see fit. No the market is all possible TV receive equipment everywhere at all times easily received with simple antennas. There will be many more small transmitters if we have a valuable product that people want and if many small transmitters is the way to achieve that. COFDM allows for such but does not require it. COFDM beats 8-VSB at the absurd big stick high powered transmitter model as well but it is not what you want in the digital world. That was an inefficient answer to multipath in the old analog world, the best that they could do at the time, not something to emulate today. Bob Miller | I'm also curious why you aren't using MPEG-4 for that video on your web | page. | | Good question, maybe I will change it. It was a simple video meant to | show a particular party what we were doing. Only later did I think of | showing it to anyone else. The compression was not important. I would have been happy with MPEG2. Hell, even DV would have been fine by me (though it would be slow to download). But Flash? Phooey! If you have video you want to let everyone see, use MPEG. MPEG4 should be fine as long as it encoded with a non-broken codec. |
1080P Standard?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:05:17 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| As far as I know, the rules require ATSC and ATSC does not have MPEG4. | Now, I would not mind having MPEG4. I realize the compatibility and | upgrade issues involved. But I also believe they are substantially | less than an upgrade in the modulation since the latter would affect a | lot more engineering issues such as transmitter coverage areas. I'll | stick with 8VSB and accept MPEG4. | | Simply not true but whatever. There are no coverage issues as Australia | and all other countries who actually tested will attest to. Comparing a COFDM transmitter to an 8VSB transmitter at the same average power is one kind of test. I would expect that kind of test to be done when evaluating whether to go with COFDM or 8VSB. I would also expect both to give about the same fringe coverage level (e.g. signal against natural noise). How they behave with issues like co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, reflections, and spurious emissions within the channel can make the difference. The above test does NOT apply to conversion of existing transmitters that are designed for the 8VSB waveform to utilize COFDM. Unless the power stages were designed for excesses to begin with (not a trivial cost at the high power levels US TV uses), to run them from a COFDM modulator means cutting back average power. The tests ANY country did to decide which modulation to go with would NOT reveal coverage issues that are applicable to conversion of EXISTSING 8VSB transmitters to COFDM. See if you can convince me that the broadcasters are NOW willing to dump their 8VSB investment (e.g. the _entire_ transmitter) to go with COFDM. | I find it very hard to believe very many broadcasters were willing to do that. | I even find it hard to believe that about Sinclair. | | At the time it would not have cost that much. Would cost more now. Of course now it costs more. So we're stuck with a decision that you think was terrible I and think was not too bad. | It's not about staying the course. If COFDM were the current modulation, | and an opportunity existed to switch, at no cost, or a small cost, to | something more dense like 8-VSB, 16-VSB, 256-QAM, etc., I would be in favor | of that. | | Don't see anyone in the world considering switching from any COFDM | system. Not even any discussions. Can't even imagine such a thing. Show me a list of US broadcasters who have gone on record with the position that they would rather have had COFDM from the beginning, and for each of them, which would be willing to: 1. Dump their 8VSB investment to go with COFDM on the same channel at the same average power level to retain the same fringe coverage. 2. Invest in a full fringe coverage repeater/translator system to go with converting their existing 8VSB transmitter to COFDM at the same peak power level, along with a complete changeover of channels due to all teh restructuring, now all to be done on a flash cut basis. | If Sinclair wants to do that, then maybe they should sell off their | stations and buy a few satellite transponders and build some new great | satellite networks. | | Why should they sell off their stations when they can collect a dollar a | sub from cable? Because a dollar a sub from cable won't scale to the kinds of channels we have now. Do you know what "BASIC cable is"? | They will be marginalized by 8-VSB and hopefully just fade away. My take | on FCC intentions. The FCC shows no interest in protecting the OTA | spectrum. Their job as I see it is to marginalize all free OTA spectrum | with the object of finding a way to legally co-opt current full power | broadcasters with some form of must carry that is divorced from any | actual broadcast requirement and then sell off their spectrum, channels | 2-51. Note the allowance of power line deliver of broadband and the | allowance of the free use of unused TV spectrum, 2-51 by smart radios. | Both are hotly contested by broadcasters as interfering with their | broadcast. Doesn't seem to have any effect on the FCC intentions. The | FCC has privately written off free OTA spectrum and is in a holding | pattern waiting for the correct political timing to eliminate it. BPL is already doomed. It won't be able to keep up. Just because it _can_ approach other forms of fast internet today doesn't mean it will be able to do so in the future. Eventually power companies will see that running fiber over their existing right-of-way is a whole lot better. Certaintly the FCC has had its issues. But the FCC has also be lied to by the BPL equipment makers, and that is now coming out. For example in the Manassas VA situation, they are starting to make the necessary orders. | The channel capacity of OTA isn't as great as that of satellite, especially | when considering high definition. I don't see that as a viable option for | the number of channels we have, and the number of people wanting them in HD. | | But I wouldn't mind a satellite based "Freeview". | | They have that to in the UK. So maybe Sinclair could do this and be first to market with the USA version. | As to the capacity of OTA spectrum. It is greater than you think. Most | of what we watch on TV is prerecorded. Doesn't matter when it is | delivered if it is recorded at the receive site and record storage cost | are approaching zero. All part of our concept since 1999. If you are | using all the spectrum available in a given market 24/7 you can more | than compete with cable or satellite and be more reliable at less cost. | The cost of maintaining the broadcast spectrum is lower than the gas | cost of the cable company. You still have to deliver it to the recorder. The advantage is when there is 2 or more playback times. But then you might as well allow playback at any time within the timeframe the program is slotted for. And if such a system can dynamically replace the commercials with new ones, that makes the playable time frame even larger. But that's not OTA TV. It's much better done by satellite and maybe cable or DSL/fiber. | So why did the manufacturers choose not to make their receivers upgradable? | | Because it would have cost a few pennies more. Because they barely made | receivers at all. Very half hearted effort still. So you agree, it is the fault of manufacturers that we don't have decent products available. | And why is mobile important to me? So I can watch my favorite soaps in | high definition while driving? | | First DVB-T COFDM was not designed for portable, it was designed for | good reception in the presence of multipath, the nemesis of OTA analog | broadcasting from day one. The fact that it can be received mobile or | portable is a fringe benefit. The point is that COFDM is far better for | reception. That is why you want it. If you want to watch HD mobile you | can. You don't have to be driving, you could be a passenger in a car, | train, boat etc. etc. Multipath is not much of an issue for OTA analog in most locations. The only time I have seen multipath issues is in concrete valleys. That means the few people who live downtown, and those who watch their soaps while driving. | | | And broadcasters would love to do just that and the cost to do so would | | | not be any more than the upgrade to MPEG4 and A-VSB would be. | | | | Modulator? PA? power bill? | | | | Broadcasters in ALL other countries have faced these and chose COFDM | | modulations. The power bill is a fiction. No test has shown that there | | is a difference in the far field with reception at the same power | | levels. I think that even there COFDM would be easier to receive and | | receivable by more people than 8-VSB due to multipath than any power | | differential. The latest I have heard on COFDM is that it now has an | | advantage over 8-VSB in the lab. | | What test was done in the "far field"? I call it "fringe" at 125 miles. | | The typical "B" grade for a broadcast station is 60 miles. At 125 miles | it presents problems of interference for other co-channel broadcast. Far | field would be at the "B" grade. 125 miles works with analog. It can work with digital, and probably a lot better, regardless of 8VSB vs. COFDM, as long as the power level is enough. The tighter spacing of stations only means those in the fringe (125 miles) need to get a directional antenna, which is already the practice since we both know rabbit ears don't work at 125 miles. | If national programming is better sent over satellite, then so be it. | If OTA dies for that reason, so be it. At least it would be a real reson. | | OTA free broadcasting will die because of the modulation and the | disinterest of broadcasters in supporting decent reception when they can | make a buck a month per cable subscriber. OTA is kicking but in | countries with high cable and satellite use because it is free and is | receivable easily with simple antennas and inexpensive receivers. COFDM isn't going to change the interest of broadcasters. If they can make a buck selling to cable, they will want to even with COFDM. 8VSB actually does work. If the broadcasters want to abandon it to be a cable provider, that's their business (they should get out of broadcasting, and let others have those licenses). | | How are you going to explain why in most other countries OTA will be | | incredibly successful and be killing satellite and cable? | | Because in other countries, they don't have so much of a hunger for 1000 HD | channels. Most other countries don't allow a few big conglomerates to run | everything. But they consider that their God-ginve right to do that here. | | In the digital age there is no need for 1000 channels of delivery of | mostly prerecorded content. The Internet will do that. OTA is more than | adequate to deliver all the real time TV required. And with low cost | storage it will deliver the equivalent of a 1000 channels when coupled | with broadband. I don't see how high cost cable and satellite survive in | the low cost world of broadband and OTA. We are nowhere near that dream. There are only so many bits available on a finite set of OTA channels, so you can't get all that content pre-delivered to the recorders, anyway. If you're doing 2x and 3x repeats like a lot of the national networks do, then sure, the repeated time frame is suitable for disk replay. OTA programming has a lot less of that. | How much HD programming is going to be coming through these channels? | | After the auction of channels 52, 53, 56, 57 and 58 you can expect, with | proper set up to be able to receive all the TV you addiction will stand | via COFDM based services. Not to cell phones because this spectrum will | be addressing all mobile and fixed devices. The Qualcomm spectrum being | the only possible exception. And their spectrum will be just added to | the mix. That is some player who will have more than one channel will | take over the Qualcomm space and either convert it to higher bit rate | content or just continue it as Mediaflow to cell phones. It will not be | a stand alone service for long. It has to become more universal, that | is, higher bit rate, more like normal TV, or it will not survive. The total programming of those auctioned channels, even at just SD, is not even going to come close to what the satellite providers offer now. There is far more bandwidth on satellite. Whatever technology can do to squeeze more out of each Mbps, it can be done on either spectrum. | After the later auction of channels 2-51 you can expect a lot of free | OTA COFDM based everything and a radical change in FIOS, cable and | satellite. They don't survive, everything goes wireless. Fiber, cable | and satellite are all to expensive to maintain. Wireless rules for | everything. If I were to believe all that you say, then that's all the more reason for me to want OTA to stick with 8VSB so OTA dies out and all these better services can come along. But I doubt it will involve 2-6 and maybe not even 7-13. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:52:07 GMT Bob Miller wrote:
| First I do not accept your theory that their is a power problem. Second | in the fringe area, far field, if there were a problem it could be | handled with on channel repeaters. No need for more channels which is a | problem so far with 8-VSB. There are not enough channels available in | the DTV universe for the repeaters, on other spectrum (channels) that | 8-VSB requires. This problem does not exist with COFDM DVB-Ts ability to | use on channel repeaters. There is no problem in the fringe area with 8VSB. The fringe area typically does see co-channel overlap. But that has not been a problem because of the use of big directional antennas. And it also means getting 2 or more of the SAME CHANNEL. Where I grew up, we received TWO stations on channel 4. The signal was good enough in each direction to watch. That was analog. An on-channel repeater CANNOT make that happen, regardless of the modulation. | In fact I would propose that, indeed, use on channel repeaters with a | much reduced power level for the central transmitter to better sculpt | the coverage area more precisely, and reduce total power use by a factor | of 10. Current, fry the pigeons, power levels for 8-VSB are creating | interference with other co-channels which have not been fully realized | since they are masked by low power transmitters authorized by the FCC to | save money for broadcasters during the transition but which, | conveniently also put off dealing with the looming interference problems. Such a proposal might have made sense right at the beginning, just as COFDM might have made sense. But trying to retrofit things now is not going to work. There is a lot of investment in specific coverage areas. You can push 8VSB transmitters on the same channel even close than you could with analog, especially in UHF. I'm sure COFDM would do that just as well. With usable signals from BOTH directions at the mid way point between 2 co-channel analog stations, I think digital isn't going to have much of a co-channel problem unless the stations get way too close (e.g. within 50 miles of each other on the same channel). | I would also favor MCMC rules to apply to satellite carriers as well. | | I favor a switch in modulation an the elimination of all must carry | rules. No need for them. What we need is more competition between cable, | FIOS, broadband, OTA and satellite not less. And in my world, one where | OTA works ubiquitously with the best compression standards available and | upgradeable just like cable and satellite can do, broadcasters would not | only not be trying to get cable to carry their content, they would be | prohibiting such carriage for their competitive advantage and putting | FIOS, cable and satellite out of business. I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree. FYI, if I were to write the MCMC rules, broadcasters would have an opt-out. But it would be a blanket opt-out. If they choose opt-out, it applies to every cable and satellite system. But at the same time, my rules would not allow the broadcasters to deny carriage at zero cost where they are the closest affiliate, under the principle that basic cable is still also a form of "alternative antenna service". | | All of them will have to supply STB's or deliver content so compelling | | that the customer will buy such. Funny I don't see any of them taking | | advantage of the coming ubiquity of 8-VSB receivers due to the mandate. | | Funny I don't see a wide choice of products on the market, yet. I think | the time is long past due to impose multi-million dollar fines on the | manufacturers. | | Less and less of a free market and more mandates. Thats the spirit. That | will get it done. What is in the interests of business is NOT in the interest of the public. Usually the interests do coincide; but not always. A regulated free market is what is right to ensure a balance, and maximize what is available for the public. Taken to an extreme, true libertarian free market would eliminate the role of the FCC entirely. No more broadcasting licenses. Just set up whatever you want and start transmitting. | | I wonder why? Why doesn't any new broadcaster consider 8-VSB what with | | all its advantages. The first broadcasters in that space will be going | | after the cell phone market which is what we proposed to them since it | | was in their line of work. But we would have gone after a broader market | | that would include all fixed, portable and mobile devices. The third | | entrant, Hiwire, suggest they will do just that with their 12 MHz. We | | suggested that to them also. They were laughing for the first few years. | | | | And Hiwire, which proposed DTV mobile, will not be considering 8-VSB | | even with A-VSB. | | If the target market is mobile, COFDM makes more sense. There will be | many more smaller transmitters, too. And they have a fixed national | spectrum so they can manage it as they see fit. | | No the market is all possible TV receive equipment everywhere at all | times easily received with simple antennas. There will be many more | small transmitters if we have a valuable product that people want and if | many small transmitters is the way to achieve that. COFDM allows for | such but does not require it. COFDM beats 8-VSB at the absurd big stick | high powered transmitter model as well but it is not what you want in | the digital world. That was an inefficient answer to multipath in the | old analog world, the best that they could do at the time, not something | to emulate today. That's NOT what the TV market has been. Would changing to that kind of market be good? Well, hopefully, the auctioned channels will let us see just what can be done. In the mean time, I'm not interested in losing the existing ability to get TV coverage in fringe locations while waiting years for the auction buyers to reach 100% coverage over every square mile of the entire country (if they ever do ... something cellular providers have never achieved, for example). -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
1080P Standard?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
The only venture that tried to do something with OTA, USDTV, was about to use MPEG4. And USDTV is bankrupt. I don't know but assume that broadcasters, who have spent a lot of time and millions on getting multicast must carry will want at some time to maximize the value of their spectrum. There we go. Psycho Bob admits that he does NOT know, but assumes. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com