Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
Tam/WB2TT wrote:


Also, I bet you lose the signal every time a truck or bus passes
between you and the station. Even on a short trip like New York to
Philadelphia, you would probably get no signal in at least the middle
1/3, because people there have rooftop antennas (or cable).

Tam

Not true. It only depends on the design of the broadcast network. If
you have enough signal you will be able to receive the signal
anywhere. If the network provides enough signal between Philly and
New York you will get reception. Diversity in broadcast sites and your
receiver helps with Doppler affects.


Bob Miller

Diversity in broadcast sites = repeater stations?



They can use on channel repeaters and even translators also but an SFN
is not built using repeaters. An SFN is having multiple sites
transmitting the same signal at the same time in sync. You can have an
SFN and also use on channel repeaters and even translators.

Bob Miller

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Bob Miller wrote:
Also, I bet you lose the signal every time a truck or bus passes between
you and the station. Even on a short trip like New York to Philadelphia,
you would probably get no signal in at least the middle 1/3, because people
there have rooftop antennas (or cable).
Not true. It only depends on the design of the broadcast network. If you have
enough signal you will be able to receive the signal anywhere. If the network
provides enough signal between Philly and New York you will get reception.

Psycho Bob once again makes several meaningless statements:
"Not true. If pigs had large enough wings, they could fly.
Therefore, I am right in saying that pigs can fly."

There isn't "enough signal", anywhere in the world. Not in the US, not in
Japan, not in Europe, and not in Australia.

Psycho Bob can talk all he wants about how pigs could fly if only they had
large enough wings. The fact remains that pigs can't fly.

If you mean with the current US network design and 8-VSB you can forget it.

If you mean with the current Japanese network design and ISDB-T you can
forget it too.

In Japan they have not built out their OTA network. They have only added most
of their prefectures in the last few months at low power. In time they will
have a ubiquitous network that will work well mobile or fixed in most of the
country.

Since Psycho Bob predicts this, it will not happen.

The US will have the same with new broadcasters. It is just a shame that we
will go on wasting prime RF real estate on channels 2-51 using the garbage
modulation 8-VSB.

Since Psycho Bob predicts this, it will not happen either.

I am Psycho Bob Miller

Yes, we know that you are a Psycho Bob.

-- 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.

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Bob Miller wrote:
They can use on channel repeaters and even translators also but an SFN is not
built using repeaters. An SFN is having multiple sites transmitting the same
signal at the same time in sync. You can have an SFN and also use on channel
repeaters and even translators.

More flying pigs. This isn't what is being done in Japan.

-- 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.

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

Bob Miller wrote:
Jeff Shoaf wrote:


Not true. It only depends on the design of the broadcast network. If
you have enough signal you will be able to receive the signal
anywhere. If the network provides enough signal between Philly and
New York you will get reception. Diversity in broadcast sites and
your receiver helps with Doppler affects.


Bob Miller

Diversity in broadcast sites = repeater stations?



They can use on channel repeaters and even translators also but an SFN
is not built using repeaters. An SFN is having multiple sites
transmitting the same signal at the same time in sync. You can have an
SFN and also use on channel repeaters and even translators.

Bob Miller


Won't fly in the US - there's already a backlash against cell phone
towers. It's the "not in my backyard" syndrome - even if folks wanted
mobile HD, they wouldn't want it bad enough to agree to even more
skyline pollution.

There's another discrepancy in your postings: you claim that
broadcasters don't want to pay the power bill to broadcast OTA via our
current standard, but you expect them to put up multiple transmitters in
multiple locations and pay to power and maintain them all...

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
Jeff Shoaf wrote:


Not true. It only depends on the design of the broadcast network. If
you have enough signal you will be able to receive the signal
anywhere. If the network provides enough signal between Philly and
New York you will get reception. Diversity in broadcast sites and
your receiver helps with Doppler affects.


Bob Miller

Diversity in broadcast sites = repeater stations?



They can use on channel repeaters and even translators also but an SFN
is not built using repeaters. An SFN is having multiple sites
transmitting the same signal at the same time in sync. You can have an
SFN and also use on channel repeaters and even translators.

Bob Miller


Won't fly in the US - there's already a backlash against cell phone
towers. It's the "not in my backyard" syndrome - even if folks wanted
mobile HD, they wouldn't want it bad enough to agree to even more
skyline pollution.

There's another discrepancy in your postings: you claim that
broadcasters don't want to pay the power bill to broadcast OTA via our
current standard, but you expect them to put up multiple transmitters in
multiple locations and pay to power and maintain them all...


No discrepancy. Broadcasters see no return on their electricity monthly
investment in OTA broadcasting especially on UHF channels where the
power bills can be 10 times what they are on VHF. They see every
customer watching them OTA as a freeloader who is not paying them a
subscription fee on cable.

They have little interest in OTA since it is a nightmare of reception
problems.

If on the other hand they had a decent modulation OTA they could see
their OTA spectrum in a different light. Ease of reception and a vast
new market of portable and mobile viewers that cable and satellite can
not compete for would entice them to not only embrace their OTA spectrum
but be willing to spend more to see that they is ubiquitous reception of
their signal in their entire coverage area.

An SFN that consist of multiple transmitters would cost far less to
maintain, cost far less for rent, cost far less in electricity cost and
would be far more reliable than the current single high powered stick
network design.

Transmitters that are solid state need little maintenance and use as
little as 100 Watts of power can be used. They can overlap so that if
one is out little or no loss of coverage is experienced. They can be
placed on lower towers or even apartment buildings and do not rely on
being on the highest point in a market. If one tower or building owner
demands to much you can find another nearby that will offer a much
better bargain.

Compare trying to negotiate a place on the Empire State Building and the
space and power to operate at a MegaWatt to negotiating for say 10
sites on short towers or buildings in the New York market at 100 Watts.
Piece of cake and low cost for an SFN, extremely expensive and fragile
high power on the ESB.

Notice how many tall towers fall in the US or have fires that take out
stations for extended periods. Think WTC and 9/11. Think Moscow and
their TV tower fire. Think about the accidents that happen every year in
the US. The job of being a tower guy in the US is far more dangerous
than fishing for King Crab off of Alaska.

We negotiated for three sites in Manhattan for solid state transmitters,
power and antenna sites on building rooftops. Total cost was under $4000
per month and we could have done it for less.

Had no problem finding sites. Every building we talked to could not stop
calling us back to see if we were still interested even six months after
we were done with our experimental license.

Bob Miller

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

Bob Miller wrote:
Jeff Shoaf wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
Jeff Shoaf wrote:


Not true. It only depends on the design of the broadcast network.
If you have enough signal you will be able to receive the signal
anywhere. If the network provides enough signal between Philly and
New York you will get reception. Diversity in broadcast sites and
your receiver helps with Doppler affects.


Bob Miller

Diversity in broadcast sites = repeater stations?



They can use on channel repeaters and even translators also but an
SFN is not built using repeaters. An SFN is having multiple sites
transmitting the same signal at the same time in sync. You can have
an SFN and also use on channel repeaters and even translators.

Bob Miller


Won't fly in the US - there's already a backlash against cell phone
towers. It's the "not in my backyard" syndrome - even if folks wanted
mobile HD, they wouldn't want it bad enough to agree to even more
skyline pollution.

There's another discrepancy in your postings: you claim that
broadcasters don't want to pay the power bill to broadcast OTA via our
current standard, but you expect them to put up multiple transmitters
in multiple locations and pay to power and maintain them all...


No discrepancy. Broadcasters see no return on their electricity monthly
investment in OTA broadcasting especially on UHF channels where the
power bills can be 10 times what they are on VHF. They see every
customer watching them OTA as a freeloader who is not paying them a
subscription fee on cable.

They have little interest in OTA since it is a nightmare of reception
problems.

If on the other hand they had a decent modulation OTA they could see
their OTA spectrum in a different light. Ease of reception and a vast
new market of portable and mobile viewers that cable and satellite can
not compete for would entice them to not only embrace their OTA spectrum
but be willing to spend more to see that they is ubiquitous reception of
their signal in their entire coverage area.

An SFN that consist of multiple transmitters would cost far less to
maintain, cost far less for rent, cost far less in electricity cost and
would be far more reliable than the current single high powered stick
network design.

Transmitters that are solid state need little maintenance and use as
little as 100 Watts of power can be used. They can overlap so that if
one is out little or no loss of coverage is experienced. They can be
placed on lower towers or even apartment buildings and do not rely on
being on the highest point in a market. If one tower or building owner
demands to much you can find another nearby that will offer a much
better bargain.

Compare trying to negotiate a place on the Empire State Building and the
space and power to operate at a MegaWatt to negotiating for say 10
sites on short towers or buildings in the New York market at 100 Watts.
Piece of cake and low cost for an SFN, extremely expensive and fragile
high power on the ESB.

Notice how many tall towers fall in the US or have fires that take out
stations for extended periods. Think WTC and 9/11. Think Moscow and
their TV tower fire. Think about the accidents that happen every year in
the US. The job of being a tower guy in the US is far more dangerous
than fishing for King Crab off of Alaska.

We negotiated for three sites in Manhattan for solid state transmitters,
power and antenna sites on building rooftops. Total cost was under $4000
per month and we could have done it for less.

Had no problem finding sites. Every building we talked to could not stop
calling us back to see if we were still interested even six months after
we were done with our experimental license.

Bob Miller

You're making the assumption that every place in the US is like NY City
- it's not. A bunch of us have been assuming that you're only out for
yourself and your failed business plans, but maybe not - maybe you just
assume that everyone in the US lives in a big city.

Where I live, there aren't enough tall buildings around to provide
anywhere near the coverage needed for your SFNs. And there's a lot of
resistance to adding additional towers. The OTA broadcasters in my area
are either on top of a relatively isolated mountain or in a tower farm
in a plains area. Broadcasters would have to build towers all over the
place to get anywhere near the coverage they're getting now.

The area I live in is called the "piedmont triad" - "piedmont" because
we're between the mountains and the coast and "triad" because there's
three large cities in the area (large being relative - in size, the
cities are ranked between 3rd and 7th in the state, population-wise and
area-wise), but only one of the cities has any tall buildings and
they're all clustered within 5 miles of each other. The SFN idea just
ain't gonna happen around here.

Most of the US is still rural - maybe not population-wise, but certainly
area-wise. So your plan may work in NY, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and
maybe even in Charlotte, but it isn't gonna work in little old King, NC.
Or even Greensboro, NC.

You know, the government in the US was framed in the constitution so
that the relatively low population density rural areas would have just
as much say in the government as the high-population density areas. And
maybe that's why 8VSB was chosen - so that the relatively rural areas
could continue to receive OTA, only enhanced now with HDTV.

And to emphasize, there aren't enough tall buildings in large areas of
the US for the SFN idea to work w/o putting up a bunch more towers. And
the local broadcasters in those rural areas don't have the money to
build and maintain that kind of infrastructure.

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Bob Miller wrote:
No discrepancy. Broadcasters see no return on their electricity monthly
investment in OTA broadcasting especially on UHF channels where the power
bills can be 10 times what they are on VHF. They see every customer watching
them OTA as a freeloader who is not paying them a subscription fee on cable.

Then why do so many UHF channels use their "must carry" rights to force
cable systems to carry them, even though that means that they don't get
any fees?

They have little interest in OTA since it is a nightmare of reception
problems.

There are plenty of cable-only broadcasters. There is nothing that forces
a broadcaster to be OTA.

Nobody would shed a tear if PAX/i were to go off the air and be
cable-only. Why don't they?

Why did CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX spend a huge amount of money on OTA HDTV
equipment if they don't intend to use it?

If on the other hand they had a decent modulation OTA they could see their
OTA spectrum in a different light. Ease of reception and a vast new market of
portable and mobile viewers that cable and satellite can not compete for
would entice them to not only embrace their OTA spectrum but be willing to
spend more to see that they is ubiquitous reception of their signal in their
entire coverage area.

There is no ubiquitous OTA reception anywhere in the world, especially not
for mobile devices. That exists only in Psycho Bob imagination.

An SFN that consist of multiple transmitters would cost far less to maintain,
cost far less for rent, cost far less in electricity cost and would be far
more reliable than the current single high powered stick network design.

So you claim. That claim is not yet supported by practical engineering
experience.

Like most advocates, you gloss over very real technical problems; and you
take no responsibility for any failings in your rosy predictions.

False prophets used to be burned at the stake or stoned. What should we
do with a Psycho Bob?

Compare trying to negotiate a place on the Empire State Building and the
space and power to operate at a MegaWatt to negotiating for say 10 sites on
short towers or buildings in the New York market at 100 Watts. Piece of cake
and low cost for an SFN, extremely expensive and fragile high power on the
ESB.

So the ESB said that they wouldn't do business with a Psycho Bob.
Interesting.

Notice how many tall towers fall in the US or have fires that take out
stations for extended periods. Think WTC and 9/11. Think Moscow and their TV
tower fire. Think about the accidents that happen every year in the US.

And the more frequent failure of nodes in an SFN (which can also be due
to network communication problems) results in outages to the regions
served by those nodes. So you trade extremely rare global failures which
much more common localized failures.

We negotiated for three sites in Manhattan for solid state transmitters,
power and antenna sites on building rooftops. Total cost was under $4000 per
month and we could have done it for less.

So why aren't you using it now?

Had no problem finding sites. Every building we talked to could not stop
calling us back to see if we were still interested even six months after we
were done with our experimental license.

Everybody wants to take money from a sucker.

Too bad for you that you couldn't get a permanent license.

-- 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.

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Jeff Shoaf wrote:
You're making the assumption that every place in the US is like NY City -
it's not. A bunch of us have been assuming that you're only out for yourself
and your failed business plans, but maybe not - maybe you just assume that
everyone in the US lives in a big city.

Psycho Bob looks at the map and sees two coasts of megapolis with "flyover
country" in between.

Such thinking is especially prevailent in New York City.

Where I live, there aren't enough tall buildings around to provide anywhere
near the coverage needed for your SFNs.

I have a suggestion. Since New York City residents can afford to pay $1
million and more for an apartment, let's tax them to install a complete
SFN infrastruture for the rest of the country. What's more, we don't let
them move out of NYC.

We can call it the Bob Miller SFN Tax, and give everybody in NYC his
address and phone number if they have questions.

And there's a lot of resistance to
adding additional towers.

So, we'll tax the NYC people more to put them on power poles that are
already up. Maybe every two or three poles would be good enough.

The OTA broadcasters in my area are either on top
of a relatively isolated mountain or in a tower farm in a plains area.
Broadcasters would have to build towers all over the place to get anywhere
near the coverage they're getting now.

Try Puget Sound, with hills and glacial valleys everywhere (Puget Sound
being an example of the latter that is filled with water). The cell phone
companies are still trying to create some measure of reliability for cell
phone use while in a moving vehicle. Lots of transmitters everywhere, yet
it still doesn't work.

I live in a mobile phone dead zone, yet I can reliably receive most of the
Puget Sound OTA broadcasters. The exceptions are the ABC channel (which
sadly DirecTV doesn't yet carry in HD yet) and an independent. That
independent channel was shop-at-home for a long time so I didn't care, but
now they have Japanese animation on 45-3 so it's actually worth watching.

The SFN idea just ain't gonna happen around here.

Not if we tax NYC out the wazoo, and put a wall around it so they can't
leave.... ;-0

Most of the US is still rural - maybe not population-wise, but certainly
area-wise. So your plan may work in NY, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and maybe even
in Charlotte, but it isn't gonna work in little old King, NC. Or even
Greensboro, NC.

As the kids say, "well, duh!" ...

You know, the government in the US was framed in the constitution so that the
relatively low population density rural areas would have just as much say in
the government as the high-population density areas.

This is what the Democrats want to change now that they are in power.
So-called "blue America" is the high-population density areas, whereas
"red America" are the rural areas. That's what abolishing the Electoral
College is all about -- how dare "flyover America" consider itself to have
rights.

And maybe that's why
8VSB was chosen - so that the relatively rural areas could continue to
receive OTA, only enhanced now with HDTV.

And that's why ISDB-T was chosen for Japan, which is heavily urbanized and
simply does not have the vast rural areas that the US has. Japan consists
of a megapolis and sheer, largely-undevelopable mountains. Even Japanese
agriculture mostly takes place in nooks and crannies in otherwise dense
urban areas.

There are rural hamlets in Japan in the mountains, but these can be served
with a small local transmitter, just as is done in remote villages of
Alaska and Canada.

The fallacy of the Psycho Bob way of thinking is the assumption that local
environmental conditions don't need to be considered.

And to emphasize, there aren't enough tall buildings in large areas of the US
for the SFN idea to work w/o putting up a bunch more towers. And the local
broadcasters in those rural areas don't have the money to build and maintain
that kind of infrastructure.

Maybe Psycho Bob will agree to a special NYC tax in order to get his SFN.
Let's say something like $10,000/resident-year. A hundred or so billion
isn't enough to build a national SFN network, of course, but we'll just
keep the Bob Miller Tax for NYC residents going until it's all built. And
we'll have a wall to keep the NYC residents inside until that happens.

-- 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.

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

On 1/6/2007 7:01 PM, Tam/WB2TT wrote:
"Bernie" wrote in message
. ..
On 1/5/2007 1:09 PM, Tam/WB2TT wrote:
"Mark Crispin" wrote in message
da.com...
. . .
Also remember that mobile television is a toy. People are buying HDTV.
They are not buying into mobile.

-- 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.
I see mobile HD as something you have in the back seat of a limo, and
you watch it on the way home from the airport. Not a market of any
meaningful size.

OTH, there is mobile non HD TV in the US, supplied by some cellular
providers. This makes more sense, because you are served from the nearest
cell tower. The newest version actually simulate broadcasting, because if
3 people in the same cell watch the same program, they will all be
sharing the same RF channel/time slot. You might say they are put on a
party line.

Tam

I'd say there is a HUGE market. Have you noticed how many SUV's and vans
have DVD players. typically watched by children or other family members
sitting in the backseats? How many times have you driven down the road
or stopped at a light and seen a DVD playing? I've already been asked
why a TV tuner isn't available for those screens.

Bernie

There are certainly ways of watching analog TV in a car if you really want
to. I think that DVDs have pretty much taken over that market. 20 years ago
I would (very) accasionally see a car , usually a limo, with a TV antenna on
it - but not any more. Live TV in a car would make sense for sports, though.
Since a car antenna would have less gain than rabit ears, and be close to
the ground, it would be hopeless on a trip.
Tam


It's interesting that all of the replies to my comment focus on
transmitting the TV signals akin to transmitting current TV signals or
mobile phone signals. When someone asked me about it originally they
were thinking in terms of satellite radio which is available wherever
you are in the continental US. And thinking in terms of satellite TV.

Bernie

Report from Japan: January 2007 update
 

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Bernie wrote:
It's interesting that all of the replies to my comment focus on
transmitting the TV signals akin to transmitting current TV signals or
mobile phone signals. When someone asked me about it originally they were
thinking in terms of satellite radio which is available wherever you are in
the continental US. And thinking in terms of satellite TV.

Some satellite TV systems installed in RVs are usable while the vehicle is
in motion. Of course, this is only viewable by passengers in the cabin,
and not by the driver.

This requires a dome antenna instead of a dish. As with most such
matters, there are tradeoffs; domes generally don't perform as well as
dishes, and since they're permanently mounted on the roof you don't have
the option of positioning the antenna separately from the vehicle. Many
RVers prefer to have a dish on a tripod or stand that can be relocated as
needed, since the best place to park is not necessarily the best place for
the satellite antenna.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.