| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
IHATEF15 wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in message news:WyiNb.8272 But that's what you want to see, isn't it??? You are going to scream, "Look, even Korea is dumping ****ty 8VSB in favor of superior COFDM, so why do we have to stick with a standard that even Koreans dumped?" Agreed. Fear not, this is not going to happen. We will see. Looks like a done deal to me. For 90% of what LG and Samsung make I disagree. They would be better off if Korea and the US both adopted DVB-T COFDM. And give up on HD broadcasting within 6 Mhz band. Look just what happened to Taiwan after they switched from 8VSB to COFDM; no more HD OTA broadcasting and years of delay. Proponents of 8VSB have a compelling case there, "Just look at Taiwan, do we want to get screwed like Taiwanese???" It is not the same decision. Switching to COFDM does not entail also giving up HDTV as Japan shows. ISDB-T is COFDM. When I advocate allowing COFDM in the US I mean any version of COFDM including ISDB-T. The Taiwanese broadcasters made a decision to switch to DVB-T COFDM if they made another decision to also address hand held and mobile devices that is a separate decision that DVB-T COFDM facilitates. They could have made a decision for COFDM and HDTV or a combination of HDTV and mobile. I don't think that HDTV is ruled out in Taiwan for OTA and it can always be delivered via cable and satellite. NTSC nations have only one other realistic option beside 8VSB; ISDB-T. COFDM shouldn't even be on the consideration after what happened to Taiwan and Australia that attempted HD broadcasting on a system not built for one. What happened in OZ? They are broadcasting HDTV in 1080i. DVB-T is designed for HDTV and does a better job of delivering HDTV since it can do so at a higher data rate. Tough luck, you bet on the wrong horse. Actually they made the right bet. Do DVB-T multicast and get steamrolled by Japanese and Chinese manufacturers in global TV-set market. By going with 1080i 8VSB, the entry barrier to market is higher and manufacturers have room to protect themselves against Chinese TV sets. Multicast is not limited to DVB-T. 8-VSB is just as capable of doing multicast technically. The difference I am discussing is the receivability of the two. US broadcasters total focus at the moment is on getting must carry of multicast signals on cable. They are willing to go to extreme lengths to get this. PBS is a better indicator of what broadcasters will do once they have multicast must carry. They will do lots of multicast. American consumers are not buying HD sets because of OTA 8-VSB broadcasting. You don't convince people who just bought $5000 set to watch the Superbowl HD broadcast. US consumers are buying HDTV sets for watching DVDs mostly and some for satellite and cable. Actually it is sports broadcast that is driving the sales. Well if you can get those sports broadcast over satellite of cable yes. But the reality is that 9 or of 10 sales of HDTV sets do not include an OTA receiver. So sports OTA HDTV is only driving some fraction of 10% of sales. So as I said DVD watching is driving a large fraction of 90% of sales while sports a large fraction of 10% of sales. If we had COFDM in the US every HD set would be sold with an OTA receiver and millions of SD converter boxes would be sold for current analog TV sets not to mention millions of receivers for mobile applications. Which is about to happen soon thanks to FCC tuner mandate, except it is going to be 8VSB tuners and not your beloved COFDM tuners... As the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) fears sales of HDTV sets and any TV sets will plummet as the mandate takes over each segment. That is why the CEA is adamantly apposed to the mandate. Sales of HD capable monitors will increase though. Dealers and manufacturers will sell lots of monitors. It does not make sense to buy overpriced HDTV sets with receivers built in because of the risk of changes in the modulation to E-VSB or a non-compatible 8-VSB or 2-VSB or yes the introduction of COFDM later this year. And we are all waiting for those 5th generation LG 8-VSB or Linx receivers. Will the mandate mandate those or lower quality embedded receivers in HD sets? How much will they cost? The mandate is going to fail miserably. Most customers will not want to pay extra for an OTA receiver when they have no intention of using OTA. 90% of Americans get satellite or cable. BTW what percentage of those 1.5 million HDTV sets LG claims have been sold in Korea have embedded receivers? In the US even among AVSForum owners it is less than 3%. In the general public less than 2%. LG whines that these will all be worthless if COFDM is used. How so? What are the real numbers of 8-VSB receivers sold and in use in Korea. Can't trust LG or Samsung to come anywhere near the truth. LG and Samsung made a big blunder in advocating 8-VSB. Samsung didn't advocate 8VSB; their tuner peformance is behind that of LG's. Samsung doesn't own the source code to 8VSB and this is why their tuner performance is falling behind LG's, and this is why Korean government is trying to stay with 8VSB at all cost. I don't understand. You are saying the the Korean Government is trying to stay with 8-VSB at all cost to screw Samsung and benefit LG? I do not understand how Samsung falling behind LG has anything to do with any policy decision. stagnated the US market for a whole plethora of DTV receive devices including HDTV for IP royalties on 8-VSB. In stagnating the US market they have also slowed the whole world in buying into HD. Go with COFDM and HD is dead anyway.... Long live SD multicast!!! Again two separate decisions. HD is not dead in COFDM Australia where HD is mandated and they are selling more digital receivers than in the US. SD multicast is very much alive and well in the US where you have 8-VSB and no mandate for HDTV. In the US there will be more HD on cable and satellite soon and OTA 8-VSB will not have helped in the transition at all, in fact it only hindered it. You are advocating that HDTV can not stand on its own feet in the marketplace. In competition with SD multicast HDTV loses. That is your position as I see it. The public must be forced to buy HDTV by limiting their choice because you see that it is in their own best interest and you know better. Or maybe it is just the greed of a powerful couple of companies who just want it their way. Europe now is an HDTV market, they have a satellite delivering HD. Sales of HDTV sets can proceed in Europe without regard for DVB-T broadcast. This may cause a change to HD in Europe if successful. According to Samsung and LG sales statistics, 60% of their $3000+ premium TV sets go to the US market. As far as they are concerned, the Euro HDTV set market is insignificant. And 90% of that 60% or 54% do not have OTA receivers so they were not sold because of OTA 8-VSB. The European HDTV market just started this month so it is to be expected that it would be insignificant. It will be interesting to see what percentage of HDTV set sales in Europe will come with a satellite receiver. I bet it will be over 90% compared to the US OTA of 10%. Again I disagree. The mandate is for high end sets at first. These have the most discriminating buyers. They will want separate receivers for OTA reception. Why bother with a separate tuner when the built-in one is the latest? You think a discrete Sony 8VSB tuner is going to perform any better than an LG one?(Actually Sony tuners are manufacturered by LG) I don't expect any of them to perform very well. As most people know the first reasonable 8-VSB receiver for fixed reception may come from Linx sometime in 2005. That is using an outside antenna since dynamic multipath is still not addressed. That would be the first receiver that anyone should consider having built into their HDTV set. Monitors with no receivers will be cheaper. This will be a big selling point. Sony released a TV monitor without a tuner 20 years ago; it flopped. Having a tuner doesn't hurt; it only helps the marketability of a TV set. We will see. I expect that retailers will be strongly advocating the purchase of monitors only especially since only high end units are affected by the mandate at first. First if there is a problem with reception the return of the large HDTV set is more problematic than an STB. Second selling a higher margin separate high end receiver makes more sense to retailers and their customers are more discriminating and opinionated about receivers. Third many buyers will not want to pay for the OTA receivers they never plan on using. The monitor will be less expensive than the integrated set for cable and satellite users. No one is making money on HD yet that I know of. Anyone doing HD is losing money. That could be OK if you have a going business that creates cash that you can lose. If you can't bleed cash it is another story. So let's kill the money losing HD-broadcast biz and go back to money making SD multicast??? That is what most broadcasters seem intent on. At least that is what they are paying their lobbyist the big bucks for the last few years. They are willing to negotiate almost anything for must carry of their entire signal on cable. One of the things they caved on (a form of negotiation) was the modulation in 2001 when they were intimidated, out of fear of not getting their must carry wishes, into settling for 8-VSB. We believe if there is a demand for HD we could deliver it as files not in real time in off hours along with lots of other content. All this content has to be demanded. Nothing happens without demand. If it is there we will deliver it. If there is a lot of demand for HD it will replace everything else. Our customers will vote or bid for HD. Bob showing his true intension of 8VSB opposition...... No we do not need anything to change to do what we are doing. In fact if the US dropped 8-VSB it would be bad for us since all current broadcasters would become our competitors. keeping current broadcasters stuck with8-VSB is the best thing for us. And as I said we will deliver all the HD resolution that the market demands and that we can. 10 km radius is only a function of power and the number of transmitters in your SFN network. You just can't afford to erect transmission towers at 20 km interval as required for a reasonable COFDM reception. How can you say that when your own Korea is in the process of deploying two separate, one satellite-one terrestrial, DAB based mobile video delivery networks. The satellite network requires 9000 towers to work and the terrestrial one (COFDM Eureka 147) also requires a redundant large number of towers since it is in a higher frequency spectrum than even UHF. How can you possibly say "can't afford it" based on this and your own broadcasters freely wanting to do just this and would have to pay for it out of their own private funds? The only country that is installing a mobile capable COFDM network by purpose would be the Netherlands and Japan. Dutch one is worthless since it won't support HD broadcast. That is your opinion. The public has a say in this as they have in the UK system and the one in Berlin. And in neither market is HDTV denied because of the OTA system being COFDM. HDTV is still available via satellite and if the demand is great enough OTA will switch to or add HD capability. Australia picked a high bitrate COFDM setup for delivery to fixed and at best portable receivers. Exactly, so the mobile HD reception is now impossible. And OZ system is not even 1080i. Do you think it is effective to keep repeating what anyone can verify is false with a Google search or a phone call? OZ uses 1080i, 720p and 576p which they consider all HD. 1080i is being broadcast in OZ now. And as the URL I posted shows HD is also possible mobile in OZ. It would be strange to find them selling mobile receivers since they don't have a network for it. If the Korean delegation went there expecting such they didn't do their homework. Well, the Korean broadcasters that were advocating COFDM claimed that the Aussy network could do just do that(mobile HD reception), and were proven wrong at the site. Nowadays they are being honest about their true motive behind their push for COFDM, the SD multicast to increase the ad revenue. They were not proven wrong because HD mobile is possible in OZ using less than 6 MHz of their 7 MHz channel since they simulcast an SD program in OZ at the same time. If broadcasters decide that multicasting is the best way for them to stay in business who are you to argue with them? If they can demonstrate a difference in their income between SD and HD that would show that the public values SD and more channels more than HD and one channel. If this is true the one beneficiary of forcing them to do HD would be the manufacturers of HDTV sets. Would those manufacturers be willing to pay broadcasters the difference between their HD and SD revenue streams? I think that LG should also be required to make up the difference to the public who would be denied what they obviously want also. What you and LG are advocating is the cancellation of the free market by the powerful few with political clout at the expense of the public. Again HD content can be delivered by cable and satellite and OTA to satisfy any demand from the public. I can be done OTA with COFDM or 8-VSB. With advanced compression it can be done more. Mobile works fine even in that 64 QAM, 3/4 code system if you use diversity antennas like the Japanese are using on their cellular phone DTV broadcast system. This is not proven. Of course, COFDM advocates will try to prove this in forthcoming official 8VSB Vs COFDM testing, but I doubt it. LG engineers claim in message boards that they have beaten the COFDM reception rate in 19.4 Mbs @ 6 Mhz operating parameter. It is now upto COFDM advocates to prove that COFDM can indeed outdo 8VSB at 19.4 [email protected] 6 Mhz operating parameter. Based on what I have read of MBC's past internal testing result, I don't think they will. Maybe in Korea and only because LG and Samsung along with US special interest have cornered the market in government access but in the rest of the world COFDM does not have to prove anything. And in particular it does not have to prove anything in the narrow constraints of the limited data rate of 8-VSB. Why can you demand anything related to the only data rate that 8-VSB can do, 19.39 Mbps? Why not demand that 8-VSB show what they can do in 19.76 Mbps or any of the other datarates that COFDM is capable of? Why does COFDM DVB-T have to sink to the miserable constraints of 8-VSB? Why doesn't 8-VSB have to compete against the advanced capabilities of DVB-T or ISDB-T? It is strange that a modulation that is always being touted as almost as good as COFDM somehow thinks it can or even should be describing the parameters of any test. That only works where you have total control or thing you do of the test like in Korea or the MSTV test in the US. OZ does have 1080i broadcast and 576p which they consider HD. Well, the requirement for HD is 1080i in Korea. 720p is not used and anything less than 1080i is considered SD. It is upto COFDM camp to prove that it can beat, not match, 8VSB in reception rate. Again you want the rest of the world to conveniently match your definition of HD. I prefer 720p and consider it superior to 1080i, interlace having been a kludge since its invention. They also came to New York City and didn't check out our multiple COFDM mobile network. Must be a Sinclair employee. I didn't know whom I was talking to. Not a Sinclair employee. Only met Sinclair folk as a co witness before Congress in 2000. From what I heard the 8-VSB side of that group was insistent that they not go anywhere that COFDM actually worked. It was the other way around. They wanted to go out of pre-planned route offered by Australian COFDM engineer and test the reception. You could hear the Aussie engineer screaming in the news video "What are you doing? Even PAL reception doesn't work there. What's the point of going over there?". Well, 8VSB reception are known to work where NTSC doesn't, and the 8VSB advocates simply wanted to find out the true range of Aussie COFDM transmission tower... It turned out to be fairly short. 8-VSB reception is also known to not work where NTSC works fine. BTW when do you think you can get your 5th Gen LG receivers to New York? I have a number of sites where NTSC works fine with indoor antenna and 8-VSB works NADA. And I was not talking about going of some route in OZ I am talking about what countries were to be visited. 8-VSB crowd wanted the US and Brazil while COFDM wanted UK, Berlin and Australia also. |
Bob Miller wrote in message news:H5YNb.10827
It is not the same decision. Switching to COFDM does not entail also giving up HDTV as Japan shows. ISDB-T is COFDM. Not compatible and significantly different enough to be considered a "different" system. Just remember that what works for ISDB-T doesn't necessarily work for COFDM. When I advocate allowing COFDM in the US I mean any version of COFDM including ISDB-T. Then you are really an ISDB-T advocate and not a DBV-T advocate. Why didn't you say so??? "Both 8VSB and DBV-T suck hard, we must adapt ISDB-T" - Bob Miller Jan 16th, 2004. DVB-T is designed for HDTV and does a better job of delivering HDTV since it can do so at a higher data rate. Of course, just in 8 Mhz band..... Great for PAL nations, doesn't work for NTSC nations. Multicast is not limited to DVB-T. 8-VSB is just as capable of doing multicast technically. The difference I am discussing is the receivability of the two. How well is COFDM receivable at the data rate of 19.4 Mbits in 6 Mhz? We do know that COFDM reception is good in 16QAM @ 8 Mhz. But what about in 64QAM @ 6 Mhz??? Is it still good enough to best 8VSB??? That's the question 8VSB proponents are asking. Well if you can get those sports broadcast over satellite of cable yes. But the reality is that 9 or of 10 sales of HDTV sets do not include an OTA receiver. Chances are those people who buy large TV sets are also subscribing to cable and sattelites. Which would make the whole OTA transmission debate irrelevant. Why the dispute if people are going to subscribe to cable anyway??? As the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) fears sales of HDTV sets and any TV sets will plummet as the mandate takes over each segment. That is why the CEA is adamantly apposed to the mandate. I never heard of this. It does not make sense to buy overpriced HDTV sets with receivers built in because of the risk of changes in the modulation to E-VSB or a non-compatible 8-VSB or 2-VSB or yes the introduction of COFDM later this year. There is zero-chance of COFDM introduction in the US. COFDM is dead in the US. And we are all waiting for those 5th generation LG 8-VSB or Linx receivers. Will the mandate mandate those or lower quality embedded receivers in HD sets? Of course TV set venders are going to stick in the best tuners they could find; the cost of tuner($200~300) is miniscule compared to the overall TV set price($3,000~10,000). Having a TV set that receives better than your competitor's set makes or breaks the sales. How much will they cost? Consumer electronic prices always go down over time, never up. You will be getting better tuners for less money. Trust me on this. The mandate is going to fail miserably. How can it fail when it is a "mandate"? Most customers will not want to pay extra for an OTA receiver when they have no intention of using OTA. Well, it's not like you can buy a TV set without a tuner to save yourself a couple hundred dollars after this mandate goes effect... 90% of Americans get satellite or cable. Which would also means 90% of NTSC TV sets should be sold without a tuner. But we know the market rejected TV sets without tuners. BTW what percentage of those 1.5 million HDTV sets LG claims have been sold in Korea have embedded receivers? 10% I don't understand. You are saying the the Korean Government is trying to stay with 8-VSB at all cost to screw Samsung and benefit LG? Samsung originally backed COFDM(Because it didn't want to support a technology whose source was owned by its rival), but went with 8VSB anyway after the decision was made. Yes, Samsung is not totally 8VSB centric like LG, yet they too would balk at possible switch to COFDM now because all their R&D and manufacturing is focused on 8VSB. I do not understand how Samsung falling behind LG has anything to do with any policy decision. Simple, the government wanted to back the transmission standard whose source was owned by a local company instead of another owned by a foreign company. Again two separate decisions. HD is not dead in COFDM Australia where HD is mandated HD by I mean 1080i. and they are selling more digital receivers than in the US. You mean SD receivers... SD multicast is very much alive and well in the US where you have 8-VSB and no mandate for HDTV. This is the reason for 8VSB mandate; by increasing the TV set count with 8VSB tuners, FCC is giving the broadcasters an incentive to start broadcasting in HD full time. You are advocating that HDTV can not stand on its own feet in the marketplace. In the beginning no. It is a classic a chicken and an egg dilema. To have a chicken(HD broadcast) you need an egg(HDTV set). To have an egg you need a chicken. So FCC is mandating the egg so that plenty of chickens can be eaten afterward. In competition with SD multicast HDTV loses. But consumers are not even given the opportunity to choose by greedy broadcasters. Given a choice between HD and SD multicast, I would go with HD. But I am not given that choice. The public must be forced to buy HDTV by limiting their choice because you see that it is in their own best interest and you know better. Kids are "forced" to goto school until 12th grade because it is in their own best interest and you know better. Given the choice between the school and the mall in the afternoon, the majority of kids would choose the mall to hang around. But "grown ups" don't want that. I don't expect any of them to perform very well. As most people know the first reasonable 8-VSB receiver for fixed reception may come from Linx sometime in 2005. They are already on the market. People are very happy with 4th gen chipset that are in current set tops. That is using an outside antenna since dynamic multipath is still not addressed. That's odd, since people are waving their antenas around and the TV set received just fine. We will see. I expect that retailers will be strongly advocating the purchase of monitors only especially since only high end units are affected by the mandate at first. Retailers want to sell you the most expensive sets in their store. Second selling a higher margin separate high end receiver makes more sense to retailers and their customers are more discriminating and opinionated about receivers. What's the point of purchasing a separate tuner when they are going to be built in??? Third many buyers will not want to pay for the OTA receivers they never plan on using. The monitor will be less expensive than the integrated set for cable and satellite users. How come I never see any tunerless NTSC sets for these cable/satellite users??? That is what most broadcasters seem intent on. And we should let auto companies prevail and remove airbags from cars since they are almost never used. Hell, I was once in an accident and the airbag didn't go off because the collison wasn't highspeed enough. Then why are feds mandating airbags in cars and are jacking up prices??? Airbag should be made optional so that people could save $1000 per car. And why do I get the vaccination for Polio since nobody ever gets Polio anymore??? I have never been seriously ill in my life, so nobody should mandate me to get shots I don't want. How can you say that when your own Korea is in the process of deploying two separate, one satellite-one terrestrial, DAB based mobile video delivery networks. The satellite network requires 9000 towers to work The sattellite network operator is also the biggest cellphone network operator. In other word, they plan on installing the transmitters on their existing cellphone network. and the terrestrial one (COFDM Eureka 147) also requires a redundant large number of towers since it is in a higher frequency spectrum than even UHF. They won't erect any new towers. They will just lease lines and transmitter equipment from cellphone network operators.(Rivals of above mentioned sattellite network operator). But you cannot install TV broadcast equipment on cellphone towers... How can you possibly say "can't afford it" based on this and your own broadcasters freely wanting to do just this and would have to pay for it out of their own private funds? Bucause it doesn't cost much to build a DMB network. That is your opinion. The public has a say in this as they have in the UK system and the one in Berlin. Are people really interested in watching TV while driving and goto jail? How many people can afford to be chauffeured so that they could watch TV via small screen in the backseat??? They were not proven wrong because HD mobile is possible in OZ using less than 6 MHz of their 7 MHz channel since they simulcast an SD program in OZ at the same time. Too bad mobile HD reception at any distance didn't work while they were in OZ last month. If broadcasters decide that multicasting is the best way for them to stay in business who are you to argue with them? Because these broadcasters are using the public property(airwave) free of charge, they are ought to be regulated and serve public interest. What you and LG are advocating is the cancellation of the free market by the powerful few with political clout at the expense of the public. Because public wants to see HD broadcast full-time!!! Why can you demand anything related to the only data rate that 8-VSB can do, 19.39 Mbps? Because 8VSB sacrificed some receptability in order to attain this bitrate required of HD broadcasting, and COFDM must prove that it can outdo 8VSB in receptability under identical condition and transmission output. So far, COFDM was demonstrated only under lower bitrate in wider band around the world. I am asking COFDM to be judged under equal condition. Why does COFDM DVB-T have to sink to the miserable constraints of 8-VSB? Because the US has 6 Mhz band and 19.4 Mbits is required for HD broadcasting, not 15 Mbits on 8 Mhz band like in Europe. It is strange that a modulation that is always being touted as almost as good as COFDM somehow thinks it can or even should be describing the parameters of any test. I also wonder why COFDM supporters refuse to be tested under idential condition and claim "The test was rigged in favor of 8VSB!!! We will not be subject to such unfair testing!" COFDM is proposed as an 8VSB, right? Then it must prove it is substantially better than 8VSB under identical condition to warrant its replacement. 8-VSB reception is also known to not work where NTSC works fine. Must be talking about 1st to 2nd gen tuners. when do you think you can get your 5th Gen LG receivers to New York? 6 months after it hits local market first. There is a generation gap between product launching in Korea and in the US, especially the tuners. |
IHATEF15 wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in message news:H5YNb.10827 It is not the same decision. Switching to COFDM does not entail also giving up HDTV as Japan shows. ISDB-T is COFDM. Not compatible and significantly different enough to be considered a "different" system. Just remember that what works for ISDB-T doesn't necessarily work for COFDM. Again, ISDB-T uses COFDM just like DVB-T uses COFDM. When I advocate allowing COFDM in the US I mean any version of COFDM including ISDB-T. Then you are really an ISDB-T advocate and not a DBV-T advocate. Why didn't you say so??? "Both 8VSB and DBV-T suck hard, we must adapt ISDB-T" - Bob Miller Jan 16th, 2004. I am not an ISDB-T advocate, I am a critic of 8-VSB. Both DVB-T and ISDB-T are far better than 8-VSB. Under the right conditional I would use either. ISDB-T is not as mature as DVB-T but We are looking into it. DVB-T is designed for HDTV and does a better job of delivering HDTV since it can do so at a higher data rate. Of course, just in 8 Mhz band..... Great for PAL nations, doesn't work for NTSC nations. No you can do HDTV mobile at 19.76 Mbps in a 6 MHz channel as Sinclair demonstrated in Congressional hearings in 2000. The 8-VSB proponents were locked to 19.39 Mbps and a fixed directional and more expensive antenna while DVB-T COFDM was able to receive a 1080i HD signal on a simple bow tie that was walked around the hearing room. The 8-VSB proponents at the hearing declined to move their antenna despite being asked to by Chairman Powell. Multicast is not limited to DVB-T. 8-VSB is just as capable of doing multicast technically. The difference I am discussing is the receivability of the two. How well is COFDM receivable at the data rate of 19.4 Mbits in 6 Mhz? We do know that COFDM reception is good in 16QAM @ 8 Mhz. But what about in 64QAM @ 6 Mhz??? Is it still good enough to best 8VSB??? That's the question 8VSB proponents are asking. 8-VSB proponents are asking something of DVB-T? Usually they hide when asked to test against COFDM on a level playing field. As I said in Australia they demonstrated receiving 1080i HD mobile in less than 6 MHz of their 7 MHz channel at 64 QAM, 3/4 code 8k. If you think you can do better with 8-VSB we will warm up the van. Bring it on. New York City is waiting. I thought that you said that 8-VSB wasn't ready for mobile? Well if you can get those sports broadcast over satellite of cable yes. But the reality is that 9 or of 10 sales of HDTV sets do not include an OTA receiver. Chances are those people who buy large TV sets are also subscribing to cable and sattelites. Which would make the whole OTA transmission debate irrelevant. Why the dispute if people are going to subscribe to cable anyway??? If COFDM DVB-T or ISDB-T were allowed in the US many people would not need cable or satellite anymore. Cable companies in Berlin are already suing because of perceived threat from OTA. Many people are already dropping cable in Berlin for OTA DVB-T. If we stay with 8-VSB, I agree with you, OTA will just wither away. an OTA modulation that works is not irrelevant, it is powerful and can take back most if not all ground lost to cable and satellite. As the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) fears sales of HDTV sets and any TV sets will plummet as the mandate takes over each segment. That is why the CEA is adamantly apposed to the mandate. I never heard of this. You have to get out more, read newspapers etc. Or just do a Google search for mandate, CEA. http://www.ucan.org/consumer_info/multichannelnews2.htm It does not make sense to buy overpriced HDTV sets with receivers built in because of the risk of changes in the modulation to E-VSB or a non-compatible 8-VSB or 2-VSB or yes the introduction of COFDM later this year. There is zero-chance of COFDM introduction in the US. COFDM is dead in the US. We are already broadcasting with COFDM in the US. How can that be? And we are all waiting for those 5th generation LG 8-VSB or Linx receivers. Will the mandate mandate those or lower quality embedded receivers in HD sets? Of course TV set venders are going to stick in the best tuners they could find; the cost of tuner($200~300) is miniscule compared to the overall TV set price($3,000~10,000). Having a TV set that receives better than your competitor's set makes or breaks the sales. Not "of course" at all. Analyst fully expect that manufacturers will install the cheapest tuner possible in many sets knowing that they will never be used by most buyers. That is one strategy. The other is to just make and sell tunerless monitors. That is what I expect. How much will they cost? Consumer electronic prices always go down over time, never up. You will be getting better tuners for less money. Trust me on this. Well I expect that Linx receivers will come out at the high end and stay there for a while. Six and seven years after 2000 the best 8-vSB receivers will still be too expensive and still not handle dynamic multipath. The mandate is going to fail miserably. How can it fail when it is a "mandate"? a. No one buys HDTV sets with tuners in them. b. Few people buy HDTV sets with tuners in them. C. Sales of monitors rise. The whole purpose of the mandate, to achieve phony high rates of supposed OTA receiver usage, will be moot. The 85% OTA receiver date for analog turnoff will still be a tantalizing 400 years out. Most customers will not want to pay extra for an OTA receiver when they have no intention of using OTA. Well, it's not like you can buy a TV set without a tuner to save yourself a couple hundred dollars after this mandate goes effect... Can by monitors. Can not buy anything. CEA is worried about that. They don't like a drop in sales. 90% of Americans get satellite or cable. Which would also means 90% of NTSC TV sets should be sold without a tuner. But we know the market rejected TV sets without tuners. I don't know that and we have never been in a situation like this. I think the market is just going to love tunerless TV sets. Reminds me of the different regulations on cars and light trucks as to gas mileage and safety equipment. Who would have thought the car companies could sell so many light trucks? Pretty soon everything will be a light truck. You won't be able to buy a car. Pretty soon you will not be able to buy a TV set, only monitors. BTW what percentage of those 1.5 million HDTV sets LG claims have been sold in Korea have embedded receivers? 10% I don't understand. You are saying the the Korean Government is trying to stay with 8-VSB at all cost to screw Samsung and benefit LG? Samsung originally backed COFDM(Because it didn't want to support a technology whose source was owned by its rival), but went with 8VSB anyway after the decision was made. Yes, Samsung is not totally 8VSB centric like LG, yet they too would balk at possible switch to COFDM now because all their R&D and manufacturing is focused on 8VSB. If Samsung can change once they can change again. I do not understand how Samsung falling behind LG has anything to do with any policy decision. Simple, the government wanted to back the transmission standard whose source was owned by a local company instead of another owned by a foreign company. Again two separate decisions. HD is not dead in COFDM Australia where HD is mandated HD by I mean 1080i. Yes Australia does 1080i. I thought I told you that before. and they are selling more digital receivers than in the US. You mean SD receivers... SD and HD. SD multicast is very much alive and well in the US where you have 8-VSB and no mandate for HDTV. This is the reason for 8VSB mandate; by increasing the TV set count with 8VSB tuners, FCC is giving the broadcasters an incentive to start broadcasting in HD full time. The TV set count with 8-VSB tuners could be 100%, it does not mean that even 10% are hooked up to an antenna. The incentive for broadcasters is for cable to carry their multicast signal. ANYTHING THAT BROADCASTERS DO NOW IS either a delaying tactic or to keep Congress and the FCC happy until they get must carry of multicasting and datacasting. And in the case of the big networks increased ownership rights. Once they have that all bets are off. Don't expect much HD OTA. If you want to see the future look at USDTV and their two cousins. First they will have HD and a sub channel SD and they they will have a free to air SD and either an HD or multiple SD sub channels in a subscription service. And then you will get as much HD as the market demands no more. HD will be on satellite and cable mostly. OTA 8-VSB will be low end SD. You are advocating that HDTV can not stand on its own feet in the marketplace. In the beginning no. It is a classic a chicken and an egg dilema. To have a chicken(HD broadcast) you need an egg(HDTV set). To have an egg you need a chicken. So FCC is mandating the egg so that plenty of chickens can be eaten afterward. In competition with SD multicast HDTV loses. But consumers are not even given the opportunity to choose by greedy broadcasters. Given a choice between HD and SD multicast, I would go with HD. But I am not given that choice. They have a choice in Australia. OZ is simulcasting the same content in SD and HD on the same channel. You can buy an SD receiver or an SD/HD receiver. They are choosing SD. The public must be forced to buy HDTV by limiting their choice because you see that it is in their own best interest and you know better. Kids are "forced" to goto school until 12th grade because it is in their own best interest and you know better. Given the choice between the school and the mall in the afternoon, the majority of kids would choose the mall to hang around. But "grown ups" don't want that. Now I get it your God or Daddy. You know best and the rest of us just don't know what's best for us. I don't expect any of them to perform very well. As most people know the first reasonable 8-VSB receiver for fixed reception may come from Linx sometime in 2005. They are already on the market. People are very happy with 4th gen chipset that are in current set tops. Some people are. Even the MSTV test said maybe 70% would get good 8-VSB reception. So here and there you will find satisfied 8-vSB customers. That is using an outside antenna since dynamic multipath is still not addressed. That's odd, since people are waving their antenas around and the TV set received just fine. Maybe you can come to New York City and do your magic wand trick. I will videotape it myself. And then we can go to Mark Schubin's apartment. And then we can go to 100 other apartments. Mark can't talk about people who have brought him many generations of 8-VSB receivers for testing because they always put him under non-disclosure. He can tell you that while he gets real good NTSC reception on his TV set with simple indoor antenna he has not had such luck with any generation 8-VSB receiver yet. Do you think he has tested a 5th generation receiver under non-disclosure yet? If not bring one with you. We will see. I expect that retailers will be strongly advocating the purchase of monitors only especially since only high end units are affected by the mandate at first. Retailers want to sell you the most expensive sets in their store. And they don't want them to come back because of reception problems. Here in New York City you have to sign that you understand that the equipment is not returnable if reception is an issue. I wonder why that is? Second selling a higher margin separate high end receiver makes more sense to retailers and their customers are more discriminating and opinionated about receivers. What's the point of purchasing a separate tuner when they are going to be built in??? The point is that in most cases they will not be built in. In most cases the retailer is going to sell you a monitor and a separate OTA tuner. Of course that only happens one in ten times. Most times it is just the HDTV set and after the mandate starts it will be just a monitor. All they have to do is pull out the NTSC tuner. Third many buyers will not want to pay for the OTA receivers they never plan on using. The monitor will be less expensive than the integrated set for cable and satellite users. How come I never see any tunerless NTSC sets for these cable/satellite users??? The NTSC tuner is a non issue. Most people don't even know it is there and the cost is insignificant. 8-VSB receivers are not insignificant and dealers will be all over the customers telling them that. That is what most broadcasters seem intent on. And we should let auto companies prevail and remove airbags from cars since they are almost never used. Hell, I was once in an accident and the airbag didn't go off because the collison wasn't highspeed enough. Then why are feds mandating airbags in cars and are jacking up prices??? Airbag should be made optional so that people could save $1000 per car. And why do I get the vaccination for Polio since nobody ever gets Polio anymore??? I have never been seriously ill in my life, so nobody should mandate me to get shots I don't want. I don't think Polio shots are mandated. I don't think a safety mandate and a TV digital receiver mandate equate. The FCC is fully aware of the monitor loophole and I think the whole mandate is BS and they know it. It gets them past the next election and that is all they are worried about. How can you say that when your own Korea is in the process of deploying two separate, one satellite-one terrestrial, DAB based mobile video delivery networks. The satellite network requires 9000 towers to work The sattellite network operator is also the biggest cellphone network operator. In other word, they plan on installing the transmitters on their existing cellphone network. and the terrestrial one (COFDM Eureka 147) also requires a redundant large number of towers since it is in a higher frequency spectrum than even UHF. They won't erect any new towers. They will just lease lines and transmitter equipment from cellphone network operators.(Rivals of above mentioned sattellite network operator). But you cannot install TV broadcast equipment on cellphone towers... You say that you can't install TV broadcast equipment on cell towers but the DMB-T venture is just that, TV broadcasting. And BTW you can install TV broadcasting equipment on cell towers. We are. You can when you are using a low power cellular SFN network. How can you possibly say "can't afford it" based on this and your own broadcasters freely wanting to do just this and would have to pay for it out of their own private funds? Bucause it doesn't cost much to build a DMB network. Actually it cost quite a bit. That is your opinion. The public has a say in this as they have in the UK system and the one in Berlin. Are people really interested in watching TV while driving and goto jail? How many people can afford to be chauffeured so that they could watch TV via small screen in the backseat??? US car companies make more than 100 % of their profits off of SUVs and minivans. 40% have backseat entertainment centers (TV screens as large as 17 inches) going out the dealers door now. If broadcast TV were available 100% of those vehicles would leave the showroom with such screens. They were not proven wrong because HD mobile is possible in OZ using less than 6 MHz of their 7 MHz channel since they simulcast an SD program in OZ at the same time. Too bad mobile HD reception at any distance didn't work while they were in OZ last month. To bad, what can I say, you find what you are looking for. Seems like your travelers had blinders on and couldn't do a GOOGLE search. If they had they would have known just where to go. For example a GOOGLE search for DVB gets you... www.dvb.org/ And on the first page right in the middle it says DVB-T MOBILE in Australia Now wasn't that easy. Of course if your not looking you could miss it. Sort of like when MSTV was looking for COFDM receivers in 2000. I offered them two different ones but they said they already had enough. They only had a transmitter monitor that was emphatically not a COFDM receiver. If broadcasters decide that multicasting is the best way for them to stay in business who are you to argue with them? Because these broadcasters are using the public property(airwave) free of charge, they are ought to be regulated and serve public interest. By agencies run by LG and Samsung former presidents? In the US they are regulated and HD is not mandated. Multicasting will be the norm OTA as soon as broadcasters get must carry of multicasting. What you and LG are advocating is the cancellation of the free market by the powerful few with political clout at the expense of the public. Because public wants to see HD broadcast full-time!!! Not where they have a choice. In OZ SD receivers are outselling HD. In the US OTA receivers for HD receivers, because that is all you can get for OTA, are not selling. People obviously like HD and want it but most can't afford it. If given the choice most will opt for SD now and HD later. They do not have that choice in the US. Why can you demand anything related to the only data rate that 8-VSB can do, 19.39 Mbps? Because 8VSB sacrificed some receptability in order to attain this bitrate required of HD broadcasting, and COFDM must prove that it can outdo 8VSB in receptability under identical condition and transmission output. So far, COFDM was demonstrated only under lower bitrate in wider band around the world. I am asking COFDM to be judged under equal condition. As was shown in OZ and in the Sinclair demonstration at NAB and in Congressional hearings in 2000 DVB-T operates at a higher bitrate, 19.76 Mbps in a 6 MHz channel, and was able to receive mobile at that bitrate which 8-VSB could not do then and can't do now. Why does COFDM DVB-T have to sink to the miserable constraints of 8-VSB? Because the US has 6 Mhz band and 19.4 Mbits is required for HD broadcasting, not 15 Mbits on 8 Mhz band like in Europe. See above. It is strange that a modulation that is always being touted as almost as good as COFDM somehow thinks it can or even should be describing the parameters of any test. I also wonder why COFDM supporters refuse to be tested under idential condition and claim "The test was rigged in favor of 8VSB!!! We will not be subject to such unfair testing!" COFDM is proposed as an 8VSB, right? Then it must prove it is substantially better than 8VSB under identical condition to warrant its replacement. COFDM had been tested many times where COFDM was doing a higher bitrate 19.76 Mbps as in the MSTV test. COFDM did not have any choice as that test was totally controlled by MSTV and Zenith. This was unfair to COFDM. 8-VSB should have been required to do 19.76 Mbps also. But in any test COFDM has always been shown to outperform 8-VSB even when handicapped at a higher bitrate. We have not only not refused such test but plead for them as I have for three years now. It is 8-VSB proponents that don't show up. Didn't in Toronto, won't in New York. No problem, you just have to show up. 8-VSB reception is also known to not work where NTSC works fine. Must be talking about 1st to 2nd gen tuners. No it is any receivers you want to show up with. Here in New York City. In the bright light of day. No non-disclosure, no secret test, everything right out in the open. We will have a party and bring on the press. We will go to Mark Schubin's apartment. So when are you coming? when do you think you can get your 5th Gen LG receivers to New York? 6 months after it hits local market first. There is a generation gap between product launching in Korea and in the US, especially the tuners. Oh? Six months, I thought you had these miracle receivers now. Well its the same old story miracle receivers in six months. Been hearing that since 1999. |
Bob Miller wrote in message link.net...
I am not an ISDB-T advocate, I am a critic of 8-VSB. You are perceived as a DVB-T advocate here. Both DVB-T and ISDB-T are far better than 8-VSB. And ISDB-T in turn is much better than DVB-T, yet I don't see you preaching your ISDB-T around here. No you can do HDTV mobile at 19.76 Mbps in a 6 MHz channel as Sinclair demonstrated in Congressional hearings in 2000. At what range? Around the parking lot of TV station??? The 8-VSB proponents were locked to 19.39 Mbps and a fixed directional and more expensive antenna while DVB-T COFDM was able to receive a 1080i HD signal on a simple bow tie that was walked around the hearing room. 8VSB viwers dance with their indoor antennas and reception is fine too. The 8-VSB proponents at the hearing declined to move their antenna despite being asked to by Chairman Powell. So you believe this clip is a fake. (http://www.avkorea.co.kr/Datas/Forum/992562354.avi) Times have changed, and 8VSB indoor reception problem is a goner, Bob. Face the damn reality. 8-VSB proponents are asking something of DVB-T? Usually they hide when asked to test against COFDM on a level playing field. 8VSB proponents didn't hide when FCC tested both in 1999. FCC decided to stay with 8VSB. As I said in Australia they demonstrated receiving 1080i HD mobile in less than 6 MHz of their 7 MHz channel at 64 QAM, 3/4 code 8k. URL please. I don't see how the system that was unable to receive SD signals past 10 km range last month would suddenly start receiving HD signals. If COFDM DVB-T or ISDB-T were allowed in the US many people would not need cable or satellite anymore. Get real, OTA CNN and Disney channel??? Cable companies in Berlin are already suing because of perceived threat from OTA. Euro cable industry were not competitve and never took off even before the arrival of DVB-T. If we stay with 8-VSB, I agree with you, OTA will just wither away. an OTA modulation that works is not irrelevant, it is powerful and can take back most if not all ground lost to cable and satellite. As long as "must carry OTA" rule stays in effect, I don't see how OTA broadcasters are hurt by cable. You have to get out more, read newspapers etc. Or just do a Google search for mandate, CEA. http://www.ucan.org/consumer_info/multichannelnews2.htm Federal Court already ruled against CEA last year. The 8VSB tuner mandate will go in effect by December 31st 2006 unless overturned by the supreme court. Not "of course" at all. Analyst fully expect that manufacturers will install the cheapest tuner possible in many sets knowing that they will never be used by most buyers. This is exactly what LG is counting on. By installing their 5th gen 8VSB tuner they can guarantee a superior reception over its Japanese rivals and increase market share. The other is to just make and sell tunerless monitors. That is what I expect. I don't see any big screen "monitors" without NTSC tuners. a. No one buys HDTV sets with tuners in them. So no one will buy HDTV set since all of them wil have one built in after mandate goes in effect??? b. Few people buy HDTV sets with tuners in them. There won't be any new HDTV serts without a 8VSB tuner. C. Sales of monitors rise. You expect others to take this arguement??? I don't know that and we have never been in a situation like this. Sony sold a line of tunerless TV sets in the 80s and failed miserably. think the market is just going to love tunerless TV sets. There is no market for tunerless TV sets today, and all of sudden it will be created??? The incentive for broadcasters is for cable to carry their multicast signal. Bob shows his true shade of color.... want to see the future look at USDTV and their two cousins. First they will have HD and a sub channel SD and they they will have a free to air SD and either an HD or multiple SD sub channels in a subscription service. Nobody ever pays for an OTA service. I know some broadcasters want to create a virtual premium cable using OTA multicast, but not going to happen. They have a choice in Australia. OZ is simulcasting the same content in SD and HD on the same channel. So the OZ HD is not a true HD. You can buy an SD receiver or an SD/HD receiver. They are choosing SD. Because HDTV sets are pricy currently??? Some people are. Even the MSTV test said maybe 70% would get good 8-VSB reception. So here and there you will find satisfied 8-vSB customers. People are happy with 8-VSB reception, so why change? What, you believe COFDM will provide a better coverage with its shorter range??? Mark can't talk about people who have brought him many generations of 8-VSB receivers for testing because they always put him under non-disclosure. He can tell you that while he gets real good NTSC reception on his TV set with simple indoor antenna he has not had such luck with any generation 8-VSB receiver yet. What a poor guy, the opposite is true in Korea... Do you think he has tested a 5th generation receiver under non-disclosure yet? If not bring one with you. I don't think he even tested a 4th gen tuner yet. And they don't want them to come back because of reception problems. Whic won't happen with the 5th gen tuner, unless they are loading their HDTV sets on a back of a truck and watching HD broadcast on the highway. It will still work, just not perfect. The point is that in most cases they will not be built in. Of course it will be. It's a federal mandate, for God's sake!!!! The NTSC tuner is a non issue. Most people don't even know it is there and the cost is insignificant. Same with 8VSB tuners. Prices are dropping fast. 8-VSB receivers are not insignificant and dealers will be all over the customers telling them that. They are insignficant enough that mnay newer consumer PCs come with one. I don't think Polio shots are mandated. You have to be vaccinated to goto school. You say that you can't install TV broadcast equipment on cell towers but the DMB-T venture is just that, TV broadcasting. The signal is not powerful enough to interfere with cellphone operation. US car companies make more than 100 % of their profits off of SUVs and minivans. 40% have backseat entertainment centers (TV screens as large as 17 inches) Which will be better served with DMB than with HDTV anyway. If broadcast TV were available 100% of those vehicles would leave the showroom with such screens. Chrysler loaded the first batch of Pacifica with entertainment goodies and it flopped. So they are now shipping stripped down versions instead. I don't see too many minivans equipped with LCD TV screens. To bad, what can I say, you find what you are looking for. Seems like your travelers had blinders on and couldn't do a GOOGLE search. If they had they would have known just where to go. I can't find any. You supply the URL. For example a GOOGLE search for DVB gets you... / And on the first page right in the middle it says DVB-T MOBILE in Australia Now wasn't that easy. Ha Ha Ha, you didn't even bother to read the whole text thoroughly!!! They are talking about the very mobility demonstration test made befor Korean fact-finding team last month!!! And the fact-finding team's conclusion??? Mobile HDTV reception - Not possible. Mobile SDTV reception - Posssible within 10 km radius from the transmission tower. Even the most hardcore Korean DVB-T supporters don't talk about the mobile HDTV reception with DVB-T nowadays, because they were proven wrong at OZ trial. I repeat again, COFDM is actually slightly worse than 8VSB in 19.4 Mbits data rate @ 6 Mhz band. Not where they have a choice. In OZ SD receivers are outselling HD. Because of pricing issue. People obviously like HD and want it but most can't afford it. Price will be driven down. If given the choice most will opt for SD now and HD later. If broadcasters get their COFDM multicast wishes, they will never move to HD broadcasting later. They have no incentive to do so. They do not have that choice in the US. Forcing HD broadcasting in the name of public interest is good. This was unfair to COFDM. 8-VSB should have been required to do 19.76 Mbps also. COFDM is being proposed as an 8VSB replacement. As such it must demonstrate that it will outperform 8VSB under identical condition by a substantial margin large enough to justify the massive cost of a switch. But in any test COFDM has always been shown to outperform 8-VSB even when handicapped at a higher bitrate. Not according to FCC's testing in 1999. No it is any receivers you want to show up with. Here in New York City. Trust me, Korean broadcasting condition is worse than NYC. 50% of population living in massive 20~30 story flat complexes are closely packed together. Single complex can house as many as 5,000 households. If the 4th & 5th gen indoor antennas work in such extreme conditions, they will work fine in NYC. |
IHATEF15 wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in message link.net... I am not an ISDB-T advocate, I am a critic of 8-VSB. You are perceived as a DVB-T advocate here. You perceive me as a DVB-T advocate. If you read my post you will see over and over that I mention DMB-T (China), ISDB-T and DVB-T and suggest that anyone of them would be far preferable to 8-VSB. I am glad that you believe ISDB-T COFDM is far better than 8-VSB. At the moment we are using DVB-T believe it to be the best overall. I have preached ISDB-T from almost my first post. Both DVB-T and ISDB-T are far better than 8-VSB. And ISDB-T in turn is much better than DVB-T, yet I don't see you preaching your ISDB-T around here. No you can do HDTV mobile at 19.76 Mbps in a 6 MHz channel as Sinclair demonstrated in Congressional hearings in 2000. At what range? Around the parking lot of TV station??? The same range as 8-VSB was using. Both were broadcast from a Washington DC TV station. The 8-VSB proponents were locked to 19.39 Mbps and a fixed directional and more expensive antenna while DVB-T COFDM was able to receive a 1080i HD signal on a simple bow tie that was walked around the hearing room. 8VSB viwers dance with their indoor antennas and reception is fine too. Can you bring your dance to New York City. Mark Schubin is waiting. NO NON-DISCLOSURES THIS TIME OK. The 8-VSB proponents at the hearing declined to move their antenna despite being asked to by Chairman Powell. So you believe this clip is a fake. (http://www.avkorea.co.kr/Datas/Forum/992562354.avi) I will believe the clip that I shot in Mark Schubin's apartment. Times have changed, and 8VSB indoor reception problem is a goner, Bob. Face the damn reality. You are suggesting that Gen 5 receivers have solved dynamic multipath which even the Linx receiver does not address. Again show me in New York. 8-VSB proponents are asking something of DVB-T? Usually they hide when asked to test against COFDM on a level playing field. 8VSB proponents didn't hide when FCC tested both in 1999. FCC decided to stay with 8VSB. But they did. Of all the test of COFDM and 8-VSB performed in the world this was the only one, the MSTV test, which was done in total secrecy. The test results were then held in total secrecy a further three months so that it could be sprung on the broadcasters without anytime to refute it. This MSTV test is now recognized to have been embarrassing fraud. As I said in Australia they demonstrated receiving 1080i HD mobile in less than 6 MHz of their 7 MHz channel at 64 QAM, 3/4 code 8k. URL please. I don't see how the system that was unable to receive SD signals past 10 km range last month would suddenly start receiving HD signals. If COFDM DVB-T or ISDB-T were allowed in the US many people would not need cable or satellite anymore. Get real, OTA CNN and Disney channel??? Cable companies in Berlin are already suing because of perceived threat from OTA. Euro cable industry were not competitve and never took off even before the arrival of DVB-T. Germany is 94% cable and satellite. If we stay with 8-VSB, I agree with you, OTA will just wither away. an OTA modulation that works is not irrelevant, it is powerful and can take back most if not all ground lost to cable and satellite. As long as "must carry OTA" rule stays in effect, I don't see how OTA broadcasters are hurt by cable. I am talking about the number of viewers who will watch OTA NTSC or DTV. It is dieing and will continue to. You have to get out more, read newspapers etc. Or just do a Google search for mandate, CEA. http://www.ucan.org/consumer_info/multichannelnews2.htm Federal Court already ruled against CEA last year. The 8VSB tuner mandate will go in effect by December 31st 2006 unless overturned by the supreme court. I did not comment on any court ruling I only said that the CEA was against the mandate because it will slow sales of TV sets. Not "of course" at all. Analyst fully expect that manufacturers will install the cheapest tuner possible in many sets knowing that they will never be used by most buyers. This is exactly what LG is counting on. By installing their 5th gen 8VSB tuner they can guarantee a superior reception over its Japanese rivals and increase market share. We shall see. I expect a very limited number of integrated sets for show purposes while tunerless monitors are pushed on the sales floor. The other is to just make and sell tunerless monitors. That is what I expect. I don't see any big screen "monitors" without NTSC tuners. a. No one buys HDTV sets with tuners in them. So no one will buy HDTV set since all of them wil have one built in after mandate goes in effect??? Right they will buy tunerless monitors. b. Few people buy HDTV sets with tuners in them. There won't be any new HDTV serts without a 8VSB tuner. C. Sales of monitors rise. You expect others to take this arguement??? I expect the real world will bear me out. I don't know that and we have never been in a situation like this. Sony sold a line of tunerless TV sets in the 80s and failed miserably. think the market is just going to love tunerless TV sets. There is no market for tunerless TV sets today, and all of sudden it will be created??? Yes the mandate for 8-VSB receivers will create it. Dealers will see an opportunity to sell a less expensive monitor and stand alone receiver. The incentive for broadcasters is for cable to carry their multicast signal. Bob shows his true shade of color.... Has nothing to do with me. To the extent that broadcasters can successfully do datacasting and multicasting they are my competitors. 8-VSB protects me from competition because it does not work mobile, because it is expensive and because it doesn't work well even fixed. want to see the future look at USDTV and their two cousins. First they will have HD and a sub channel SD and they they will have a free to air SD and either an HD or multiple SD sub channels in a subscription service. Nobody ever pays for an OTA service. I know some broadcasters want to create a virtual premium cable using OTA multicast, but not going to happen. XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting that is successful. It is already happening with USDTV and two others. They have a choice in Australia. OZ is simulcasting the same content in SD and HD on the same channel. So the OZ HD is not a true HD. It is true HD. How do you come to the conclusion that because they are simulcasting the the HD program cannot be true HD? Very strange logic. You can buy an SD receiver or an SD/HD receiver. They are choosing SD. Because HDTV sets are pricy currently??? Some people are. Even the MSTV test said maybe 70% would get good 8-VSB reception. So here and there you will find satisfied 8-vSB customers. People are happy with 8-VSB reception, so why change? What, you believe COFDM will provide a better coverage with its shorter range??? No one said change only allow COFDM also. COFDM will provide better coverage with its ability to match 8-VSB's range in the real world as demonstrated in Australia. And from what I hear from Korean broadcasters people have plenty of problems with reception in Korea with 8-VSB. This is the main concern and reason broadcasters there want to use COFDM. Mark can't talk about people who have brought him many generations of 8-VSB receivers for testing because they always put him under non-disclosure. He can tell you that while he gets real good NTSC reception on his TV set with simple indoor antenna he has not had such luck with any generation 8-VSB receiver yet. What a poor guy, the opposite is true in Korea... So either the laws of physics are different in Korea or you will prove they are the same by bringing a 5th GEN receiver to New York right? NO NON-DISCLOSURE this time though. Do you think he has tested a 5th generation receiver under non-disclosure yet? If not bring one with you. I don't think he even tested a 4th gen tuner yet. And they don't want them to come back because of reception problems. Whic won't happen with the 5th gen tuner, unless they are loading their HDTV sets on a back of a truck and watching HD broadcast on the highway. It will still work, just not perfect. The point is that in most cases they will not be built in. Of course it will be. It's a federal mandate, for God's sake!!!! If they try to sell HDTV sets with integrated receivers it will be a bust. The NTSC tuner is a non issue. Most people don't even know it is there and the cost is insignificant. Same with 8VSB tuners. Prices are dropping fast. 8-VSB receivers are not insignificant and dealers will be all over the customers telling them that. They are insignficant enough that mnay newer consumer PCs come with one. To bad, what can I say, you find what you are looking for. Seems like your travelers had blinders on and couldn't do a GOOGLE search. If they had they would have known just where to go. I can't find any. You supply the URL. For example a GOOGLE search for DVB gets you... / And on the first page right in the middle it says DVB-T MOBILE in Australia Now wasn't that easy. Ha Ha Ha, you didn't even bother to read the whole text thoroughly!!! They are talking about the very mobility demonstration test made befor Korean fact-finding team last month!!! And the fact-finding team's conclusion??? Mobile HDTV reception - Not possible. Mobile SDTV reception - Posssible within 10 km radius from the transmission tower. Even the most hardcore Korean DVB-T supporters don't talk about the mobile HDTV reception with DVB-T nowadays, because they were proven wrong at OZ trial. I will await the official report. This report in DVB Scene says it worked fine. I repeat again, COFDM is actually slightly worse than 8VSB in 19.4 Mbits data rate @ 6 Mhz band. I repeat that COFDM is actually a lot better at 19.76 Mbps than 8-VSB in a six MHz band. Not where they have a choice. In OZ SD receivers are outselling HD. Because of pricing issue. People obviously like HD and want it but most can't afford it. Price will be driven down. If given the choice most will opt for SD now and HD later. If broadcasters get their COFDM multicast wishes, they will never move to HD broadcasting later. They have no incentive to do so. Cable and satellite are moving to HD. The incentives are there for them. NO mandate for them. They do not have that choice in the US. Forcing HD broadcasting in the name of public interest is good. I like letting it up to the public to decide what is good. This was unfair to COFDM. 8-VSB should have been required to do 19.76 Mbps also. COFDM is being proposed as an 8VSB replacement. As such it must demonstrate that it will outperform 8VSB under identical condition by a substantial margin large enough to justify the massive cost of a switch. COFDM has shown that it is massively better than 8-VSB at an even higher datarate than is possible with 8-VSB, 19.76 Mbps. But in any test COFDM has always been shown to outperform 8-VSB even when handicapped at a higher bitrate. Not according to FCC's testing in 1999. Again this test was done in secret and was a fraud. No it is any receivers you want to show up with. Here in New York City. Trust me, Korean broadcasting condition is worse than NYC. 50% of population living in massive 20~30 story flat complexes are closely packed together. Single complex can house as many as 5,000 households. If the 4th & 5th gen indoor antennas work in such extreme conditions, they will work fine in NYC. Then you will not need the NO-DISCLOSURE form this time. |
We will see. Looks like a done deal to me.
Of course BOB, everything is a "done deal" to you if it means the downfall of 8VSB. The only thing BOB, it never seems to actually HAPPEN. It's all in your twisted mind BOB, all in your twisted mind. It is not the same decision. Switching to COFDM does not entail also giving up HDTV as Japan shows. Gee BOB, what iron clad guarantees can you provide the HD lovers on this board (of which you are not one, of which you could give a **** less about) that HD will remain a top priority in this mythical switch to COFDM in the U.S. that only YOU think will happen? None? I didn't think so BOB. Hey, I know BOB!! We'll "trust" you!!! Yeah, that's it!! We'll trust you! You've proven on countless occasions that you're a man of high integrity and can be trusted at his word. HA HA HA HA HA. Hey, what do you think we are BOOBY, dopes? The difference I am discussing is the receivability of the two. And we're getting 8VSB just fine here, for the most part, in the U.S. thank you BOB. Of course when you created and launch your own surveys on 8VSB reception to this newsgroup in the HOPES that you will get responses that show widespread poor reception, and you don't, you simply IGNORE the very survey you created. I've called you on this about a dozen times and you've yet to respond. You see BOB, you are as "intellectually" dishones as one can be. That's why you're our resident Snake Oil Salesman. BS is a better indicator of what broadcasters will do once they have multicast must carry. They will do lots of multicast. But not in primetime BOB. As has been demonstrated many times in the past. Well if you can get those sports broadcast over satellite of cable yes. But the reality is that 9 or of 10 sales of HDTV sets do not include an OTA receiver. Makes no difference BOB, most of those folks wind up buying satellite receivers (all of which have that gorgeous 8VSB receiver tucked right in there......you know BOB, the one you love to conveniently ignore when talking about sales....another example of your "intellectual" dishonesty") and stand alone 8VSB receivers. So sports OTA HDTV is only driving some fraction of 10% of sales. PROVE IT BOB! I'm frankly sick of you throwing around numbers that you have ZERO idea as to their accuracy. How can you POSSIBLY say that? You first say that 9 out of 10 sales of HDTVs don't include an OTA receiver....this becomes the thrust of your "proof" that HD sports does not drive sales. BOB, are you just a damn MORON or are you just such a damn liar that it looks like you're a MORON? If people can't buy the HDTV they want with an HD OTA tuner to watch the HD sports they want, they simply buy a satellite receiver or seperate 8VSB receiver. What the hell does this have to do with the main reason they bought the HDTV in the first place? It is IMPOSSIBLE to make an judegments as to motivation from those facts!!!! You truly are a repulsive little slimebag that twists facts until they bear no resemblence to reality. You are pretty damn stupid BOB. So as I said DVD watching is driving a large fraction of 90% of sales while sports a large fraction of 10% of sales. PROVE IT BOB!!! Where is your supporting data? If you can provide none, we have just caught you in yet another lie. So don't respond to me that I don't point out your lies. I just did!!! As the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) fears sales of HDTV sets and any TV sets will plummet as the mandate takes over each segment. That is why the CEA is adamantly apposed to the mandate. Right BOB. We're going to go from an 8VSB MANDATE for HDTVs to a total changeover of our broadcasting system!! Yeah right BOB. That makes a lot of sense! Do you really think the FCC would have done this if there was doubt that 8VSB was not here to stay? Are you THAT dumb? Or is this yet another case of your intellectual dishonesty Mr. Snake Oil Salesman? It does not make sense to buy overpriced HDTV sets with receivers built in because of the risk of changes in the modulation to E-VSB or a non-compatible 8-VSB or 2-VSB or yes the introduction of COFDM later this year. Well there you have it folks. We're switching to COFDM later this year. BOB just said so. Of course he said that last year, and the year before that and the year before that. But hey, fear not, when we DON"T switch, fasten your seatbelts as we begin Phase 4 of BOB'S "conspiracy theory". Yes folks we'll hear about those nasty politicians who got paid off, who are out to get BOB and his fellow sheisters and we may even hear more about Mad Cow Disease. You see this is the wonderful whacky world of BOB. And we are all waiting for those 5th generation LG 8-VSB or Linx receivers. Will the mandate mandate those or lower quality embedded receivers in HD sets? Doesn't really matter in the REAL world BOB since the current ones work so well. Are they perfect? Of course not, nothing is. Unfortunately there are many who can't get good reception because of distance and other factors, but that is true in the COFDM world too. Of course BOB when anyone posts articles relative to poor or imperfect COFDM reception, you have a pat answer "well, those are old receivers". But yet BOB, isn't interesting how you'll bring up 1,000 times that wonderful congressional hearing you're so fond of and not mention how antiquated THAT 8VSB receiver was. You see folks, more of BOB'S intellectual dishonesty. He'll sell you a bridge if you let him. The man is not to be trusted in ANYTHING he says. He is a chronic, pathological liar. The mandate is going to fail miserably. Most customers will not want to pay extra for an OTA receiver when they have no intention of using OTA. 90% of Americans get satellite or cable. BALONEY!!! Here people are typically spending $2,000 and more for an HDTV and you think that adding a mass produced 8VSB receiver will dramatically reduce sales? You've got to be kidding. You are indeed a schmuck! BTW what percentage of those 1.5 million HDTV sets LG claims have been sold in Korea have embedded receivers? I don't know BOB, but I'm sure you can make up a number as you usually do. In the US even among AVSForum owners it is less than 3%. WHAT is less than 3%? The number of HDTVs AVS folks bought with embedded 8VSB receivers? SO WHAT?? Most AVS people have BOUGHT a seperate 8VSB receiver or satellite receiver with EMBEDDED 8VSB receiver. Say otherwise BOB, and you will be LYING AGAIN. You are DISGUSTING, I'll repeat, you are DISGUSTING!!!! It's no wonder you get banned from fourm MODERATED sites. I'd ban your lying ass so fast your head would spin....you slimebag!!! Can't trust LG or Samsung to come anywhere near the truth. CAN'T TRUST LG OR SAMSUNG??? How about you? You have earned nothing but DISRESPECT for you lying slimebag ways. You are interested in making money in your mobile datacasting schemes and will do ANYTHING to make that succeed. You will lie, embellish, twist, distort..do anything to try to deceive people. BOB, it doesn't work. It doesn't work here, it didn't work on AVS it won't work ANYWHERE. There are too many HONEST people who will catch you in each and every one of your lies. You are just do damn thick, so damn stupid, that you try and try and try. You just don't get it. HD is not dead in COFDM Australia where HD is mandated and they are selling more digital receivers than in the US. Umm, this includes SATELLITE TUNERS BOB??? I can't go on reading your twisted post, I'm sick enough. |
If you think you can do better with 8-VSB we will warm up the van. Bring
it on. New York City is waiting. I thought that you said that 8-VSB wasn't ready for mobile? BOB, nobody CARES about mobile 8VSB reception. This group care ONLY about OTA stationary HD reception. When will YOU understand that you are the ONLY one on an HD ng that cares about mobile datacasting. Why do you come here? We don't want you. You are HATED here. Why don't you start a mobile datacasting ng and go there. We have ZERO interest in this even if your sole purpose in life is to destroy OTA HD here in the U.S. You are the anti-christ of OTA HD. |
So you believe this clip is a fake.
(http://www.avkorea.co.kr/Datas/Forum/992562354.avi) No you see BOB simply IGNORE al things that are 8VSB positive. Remember his survey that he created to show how badly 8VSB worked but instead he got rave reviews...that was the LAST you ever heard of that survey from BOB. Times have changed, and 8VSB indoor reception problem is a goner, Bob. Face the damn reality. I suspect that even a LIAR like BOB knows reality. The reason I think this is that BOB must lie so much to get his "poin" across. You see when you have FACTS at your disposal, there is no reason to lie. 8VSB proponents didn't hide when FCC tested both in 1999. FCC decided to stay with 8VSB. Ah, but didn't you know that's because there was a "conspiracy" according to BOB? Get real, OTA CNN and Disney channel??? Yeah, another good one of BOB'S! |
You perceive me as a DVB-T advocate. If you read my post you will see
over and over that I mention DMB-T (China), ISDB-T and DVB-T and suggest that anyone of them would be far preferable to 8-VSB. Golly BOB, anything is preferable to 8VSB? I'm so shocked that you would say that. I would say a lobotomy is preferable than reading your twisted posts. I will believe the clip that I shot in Mark Schubin's apartment. Ah yes folks there is Marks Schubin's apartment again!! This is the crux of BOB's experience with 8VSB reception. He can bring up only 2 things in his life, the "hearings" and walking around with the antenna and Mark Schubin's apartment! This is life for BOB. |
C'mon, Vidguy7,
Please don't chase Bob away. Since I recently moved, I don't get to read my favorite comic strips. But, BOB is a more than adequate substitute. I read his posts and ROFFL! Vidguy7 wrote: If you think you can do better with 8-VSB we will warm up the van. Bring it on. New York City is waiting. I thought that you said that 8-VSB wasn't ready for mobile? BOB, nobody CARES about mobile 8VSB reception. This group care ONLY about OTA stationary HD reception. When will YOU understand that you are the ONLY one on an HD ng that cares about mobile datacasting. Why do you come here? We don't want you. You are HATED here. Why don't you start a mobile datacasting ng and go there. We have ZERO interest in this even if your sole purpose in life is to destroy OTA HD here in the U.S. You are the anti-christ of OTA HD. |
Bob Miller wrote in message hlink.net...
You perceive me as a DVB-T advocate. Surely you are. You clearly advocate DVB-T even though ISDB-T is clearly technically superior. Thus your advocacy is politically motivated(multicast) and not technically motivated. and suggest that anyone of them would be far preferable to 8-VSB. If you are simply going by technical superiority then you would be advocating ISBD-T. Yet you hardly ever mention ISBD-T, only how DVB-T systems are performing well in multicast, etc. I am glad that you believe ISDB-T COFDM is far better than 8-VSB. I never denied this. But DVB-T, no. This one was meant as a PAL replacement only and is unsuitable as a HD transport in NTSC nations. Can you bring your dance to New York City. Mark Schubin is waiting. NO NON-DISCLOSURES THIS TIME OK. I don't work for any TV set manufacturer. I don't work for any broadcasters. I don't even have a job. You are suggesting that Gen 5 receivers have solved dynamic multipath which even the Linx receiver does not address. Not necessarily solved, but progresses are being made, as seen in that infamous 8VSB mobile reception testing clip. But they did. Of all the test of COFDM and 8-VSB performed in the world this was the only one, the MSTV test, which was done in total secrecy. The test results were then held in total secrecy a further three months so that it could be sprung on the broadcasters without anytime to refute it. This MSTV test is now recognized to have been embarrassing fraud. Says who? Sinclair?? 8VSB is weaker in mobile reception, while COFDM is weaker in long range reception. The trial outcome depends on what reception condition is being emphasized. In Taiwan, they put more emphasis on mobile reception so 8VSB lost. FCC put more emphasis on long-range fixed reception so COFDM lost. It's really as simple as that; different trial outcomes based on what is emphasized in testing. I did not comment on any court ruling I only said that the CEA was against the mandate because it will slow sales of TV sets. Well, CEA lost in court and the mandate stands, unless the supreme court overrules. We shall see. I expect a very limited number of integrated sets for show purposes while tunerless monitors are pushed on the sales floor. A tunerless TV set; never caught on back in the 80s, and will never catch on in 2007. XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting that is successful. It is already happening with USDTV and two others. XMRadio business model is sattelite based. Nobody charges any money for OTA broadcast, be it TV or radio. No one said change only allow COFDM also. COFDM will provide better coverage with its ability to match 8-VSB's range in the real world as demonstrated in Australia. 10 km radius max for mobile SD reception. Unknown max fixed reception, but comparatively shorter than 8VSB. And from what I hear from Korean broadcasters people have plenty of problems with reception in Korea with 8-VSB. Well, they try to make up the problem that doesn't exist, Afterall, they are the ones pushing for COFDM. If they try to sell HDTV sets with integrated receivers it will be a bust. You will be in tears standing in front of a consumer electronics store packed with people buying HDTV sets... I will await the official report. This report in DVB Scene says it worked fine. Well, the "official" report we got was that mobile HD reception didn't work and COFDM proponents didn't contest to this conclusion. What they contested was the success or the failure of mobile SD reception, since 8VSB proponents consider the 10 km range limitation as "inadequate" while COFDM proponents felt otherwise. I don't know why the DVB-T publication considered the OZ mobile HD reception trial a success; they must consider any partial registered sinal reception a success while the Korean broadcasters applied a much toucher standard; so called the "Watchability" factor. A video is unwatchable if it keeps breaking up every 10 second or so. So what used to be "Mobile HDTV" has now become "Mobile and HDTV"(Meaning they do not co-exist) I repeat that COFDM is actually a lot better at 19.76 Mbps than 8-VSB in a six MHz band. I meant the reception rate, not data rate. FCC found COFDM reception performance degrading faster than 8VSB at such hgih data rate. COFDM has shown that it is massively better than 8-VSB at an even higher datarate than is possible with 8-VSB, 19.76 Mbps. Too bad it is not just as receivable.... |
IHATEF15 wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in message hlink.net... You perceive me as a DVB-T advocate. Surely you are. You clearly advocate DVB-T even though ISDB-T is clearly technically superior. Thus your advocacy is politically motivated(multicast) and not technically motivated. I do not believe that ISDB-T is technically superior. There are some trade offs that we are interested in. I have not used it myself. It just went on the air in December. If if is better and receiver prices are comparable we will use it. I have no preference except using the best overall standard. Multicast is not a differentiator. We would do multicast with either. We are not dependent on current broadcast spectrum that is mandated to use 8-VSB, we can use anything. Can you bring your dance to New York City. Mark Schubin is waiting. NO NON-DISCLOSURES THIS TIME OK. I don't work for any TV set manufacturer. I don't work for any broadcasters. I don't even have a job. You are suggesting that Gen 5 receivers have solved dynamic multipath which even the Linx receiver does not address. Not necessarily solved, but progresses are being made, as seen in that infamous 8VSB mobile reception testing clip. From reports I had reception by 8-VSB that was demonstrated in this clip was possible in 2000. Nothing new. And I have heard of no progress on dynamic multipath. But they did. Of all the test of COFDM and 8-VSB performed in the world this was the only one, the MSTV test, which was done in total secrecy. The test results were then held in total secrecy a further three months so that it could be sprung on the broadcasters without anytime to refute it. This MSTV test is now recognized to have been embarrassing fraud. Says who? Sinclair?? 8VSB is weaker in mobile reception, while COFDM is weaker in long range reception. The trial outcome depends on what reception condition is being emphasized. In Taiwan, they put more emphasis on mobile reception so 8VSB lost. FCC put more emphasis on long-range fixed reception so COFDM lost. It's really as simple as that; different trial outcomes based on what is emphasized in testing. This time it is not just Sinclair. I have not talked to an engineer since who was not at least a little embarrassed at what was done. The FCC didn't test. MSTV and the NAB tested and all their emphasis was on making sure that COFDM failed by any means. And COFDM did not fail reception in the far field as reported. In seven locations where COFDM failed, according to MSTV, one of which 8-VSB also failed, COFDM was found to receive just fine in ALL SEVEN locations including the one the 8-vSB receiver failed in when a front end filter was used on the transmitter monitor MSTV had used as a "COFDM receiver". This filter was the same type of front end filter that all the 8-VSB receivers came equipped with. Instructions given MSTV by the transmitter monitors manufacturer plainly and unequivocally stated that this transmitter monitor was not a receiver. It was supposed to be connected by hard wire directly to a transmitter. They even said in the instructions that to operate as a receiver that proper front end filters would have to be installed. Of course the engineers who were conducting the MSTV test did not have to be told this. They knew it well. They counted on it to fail COFDM. As soon as the test results were released others spotted the incredible discrepancy immediately. I did not comment on any court ruling I only said that the CEA was against the mandate because it will slow sales of TV sets. Well, CEA lost in court and the mandate stands, unless the supreme court overrules. Again I only commented on the fact that the CEA was against the mandate and you expressed surprise. I never commented on the court case. All parties involved are very aware of the monitor loophole. We shall see. I expect a very limited number of integrated sets for show purposes while tunerless monitors are pushed on the sales floor. A tunerless TV set; never caught on back in the 80s, and will never catch on in 2007. It was a different story in the 80s. The cost of the NTSC tuner was small and their was no incentive to save money like there is with an 8-VSB tuner that raises the cost of the HDTV set an estimated $250. Lower cost later, if they come, will not affect sales of HDTV sets this year and next. Those sales like now will be insignificant and manufacturers will make only token numbers. LG may be different but will pay the price. XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting that is successful. It is already happening with USDTV and two others. XMRadio business model is sattelite based. Nobody charges any money for OTA broadcast, be it TV or radio. XMRadio is a terrestrial service with 1500 ground based transmitters. A typical customer is receiving a terrestrial signal 80% of the time. The satellite portion is a gimmick that fooled the FCC into granting a new digital radio service that would never have been granted if proposed as a terrestrial service. No one said change only allow COFDM also. COFDM will provide better coverage with its ability to match 8-VSB's range in the real world as demonstrated in Australia. 10 km radius max for mobile SD reception. Unknown max fixed reception, but comparatively shorter than 8VSB. We easily received COFDM at 65 mph at 35 miles from the transmitter in Toronto. Your LG 8-VSB proponents find just and only what they want. Come to New York and we will show you mobile at more than 10 km. This is just a function of power height and how many transmitters you have in your grid. We expect to have 50 mile coverage in many of our networks and we are limited to 50 kWs. And from what I hear from Korean broadcasters people have plenty of problems with reception in Korea with 8-VSB. Well, they try to make up the problem that doesn't exist, Afterall, they are the ones pushing for COFDM. You suggest that LG proponents are saints and your broadcasters are sinners. I see it the other way around. Your broadcasters are wearing the white hats in my movie. If they try to sell HDTV sets with integrated receivers it will be a bust. You will be in tears standing in front of a consumer electronics store packed with people buying HDTV sets... This is something we shall see won't we. I will await the official report. This report in DVB Scene says it worked fine. Well, the "official" report we got was that mobile HD reception didn't work and COFDM proponents didn't contest to this conclusion. What they contested was the success or the failure of mobile SD reception, since 8VSB proponents consider the 10 km range limitation as "inadequate" while COFDM proponents felt otherwise. Can you forward me the "official report"? From my friends working on their "official report" they are not done yet. I don't know why the DVB-T publication considered the OZ mobile HD reception trial a success; they must consider any partial registered sinal reception a success while the Korean broadcasters applied a much toucher standard; so called the "Watchability" factor. A video is unwatchable if it keeps breaking up every 10 second or so. So what used to be "Mobile HDTV" has now become "Mobile and HDTV"(Meaning they do not co-exist) I repeat that COFDM is actually a lot better at 19.76 Mbps than 8-VSB in a six MHz band. I meant the reception rate, not data rate. FCC found COFDM reception performance degrading faster than 8VSB at such hgih data rate. I am talking about the RECEPTION of COFDM at 19.76 Mbps being better than 8-VSB is at 19.39 Mbps. The FCC found no such thing. COFDM has shown that it is massively better than 8-VSB at an even higher datarate than is possible with 8-VSB, 19.76 Mbps. Too bad it is not just as receivable.... Again COFDM is far more receivable than 8-VSB and at a higher datarate as demonstrated in Congressional hearings in 2000. COFDM worked mobile with 1080i HDTV at 19.76 Mbps while 8-VSB, using a much more expensive and directional antenna (Silver Sensor $40) was not mobile and the antenna had to stay taped to a window in a particular direction. The COFDM 1080i reception was on an omni mobile $2 antenna that was walked around the room. This is a major difference in receivability. An omni antenna receives signals from all directions and in the case of COFDM can add those signals both main and multipath into one stronger signal. The directional Silver Sensor is designed to dial out all multipath signals as they cancel out the main signal and are unwanted in the 8-VSB world. The 8-VSB proponents were terrified of the multipath signals in the hearing room and were willing to be laughed rather than risk moving their antenna. Movement by the people in the room was causing dynamic multipath. Also moving the antenna across the room makes all signals multipath during the move. As far as I know no progress in dynamic multipath reception has been achieved by any 8-VSB receiver since. |
The COFDM 1080i reception was on an omni mobile $2 antenna that was
walked around the room. I believe this makes about 1,001 times the above has been repeated in the last week by BOB. You see, he never tells you that the 8VSB receiver back then was 1st generation and far far inferior to the new units of today. But I'll call him on this each and every time. I don't care how many times I make a fool of him. As far as I know no progress in dynamic multipath reception has been achieved by any 8-VSB receiver since. Untrue...totally 100% untrue. But I see at least your now couching your phrases with "as far as I know". Is this the new key to lying BOB? Your LG 8-VSB proponents find just and only what they want. You mean like IGNORING your very own survey that was designed to show how poorly 8VSB functioned in the real world? However BOB when the results came back and showed quite the opposite, you summarily dropped the survey and that was the last we ever heard of it. More of your disgusting one sided behavior. And you have the CHUTZPAH to say what you said above? SHAME BOB, SHAME!!!! |
The funniest part is that Bob himself is AFRAID to test COFDM at Schubin's
apartment! He's made up some BS story as a cover up. Truth is likely that the DVB folks have 'advised' him against it. "Vidguy7" wrote in message ... Ah yes folks there is Marks Schubin's apartment again!! This is the crux of BOB's experience with 8VSB reception. He can bring up only 2 things in his life, the "hearings" and walking around with the antenna and Mark Schubin's apartment! This is life for BOB. |
Bob Miller wrote
XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting that is successful. It is already happening with USDTV and two others. Miller has always tried to impress and wants to appear as an industry insider/broadcasting expert, but he doesn't even know that XMRadio is a satellite service, and not OTA?? Jeeze... unbelievable... |
David wrote:
Bob Miller wrote XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting that is successful. It is already happening with USDTV and two others. Miller has always tried to impress and wants to appear as an industry insider/broadcasting expert, but he doesn't even know that XMRadio is a satellite service, and not OTA?? Jeeze... unbelievable... XMRadio uses 1500 terrestrial transmitters without which they could not operate. Many, including their radio competitors, would argue, as I do, that they are indeed a terrestrial service. |
Bob Miller wrote
XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting. they are indeed a terrestrial service. Because XMRadio needs to use some repeaters in very challenging locations? XMRadio is _not_ considered an OTA terrestrial service. Your most deranged postings are usually around 2:30 AM. Try to get some sleep, you'll be able to think more clearly! "Bob Miller" wrote in message link.net... David wrote: Bob Miller wrote XMRadio is and example of a pay service OTA broadcasting that is successful. It is already happening with USDTV and two others. Miller has always tried to impress and wants to appear as an industry insider/broadcasting expert, but he doesn't even know that XMRadio is a satellite service, and not OTA?? Jeeze... unbelievable... XMRadio uses 1500 terrestrial transmitters without which they could not operate. Many, including their radio competitors, would argue, as I do, that they are indeed a terrestrial service. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com