Head-end Technicalities
 

What are the steps at a CATV head-end facility to convert 8VSB from an
off-air receiver to QAM for remodulation?

Must each subchannel be broken out and processed separately before being
recombined into its new channel?

Does each modulator have a finite number of inputs (for the
subchannels), or are the subchannels combined in a separate device
before being fed into the modulator?

Is the PSID encoder a part of each QAM modulator, or must PSID
information be inserted into each feed *prior* to being fed into the
modulator?

Head-end Technicalities
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0400, (Cinder Lane) wrote:

What are the steps at a CATV head-end facility to convert 8VSB from an
off-air receiver to QAM for remodulation?

Must each subchannel be broken out and processed separately before being
recombined into its new channel?


Does each modulator have a finite number of inputs (for the
subchannels), or are the subchannels combined in a separate device
before being fed into the modulator?

Is the PSID encoder a part of each QAM modulator, or must PSID
information be inserted into each feed *prior* to being fed into the
modulator?

Transparent Video Systems, www.transparenvideo.net is doing this type of
thing with their Model DRM head end unit in a Single box with MULTIPLE tuners

Head-end Technicalities
 

Steve Urbach wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0400, (Cinder Lane) wrote:

What are the steps at a CATV head-end facility to convert 8VSB from an
off-air receiver to QAM for remodulation?

Must each subchannel be broken out and processed separately before being
recombined into its new channel?

Does each modulator have a finite number of inputs (for the
subchannels), or are the subchannels combined in a separate device
before being fed into the modulator?

Is the PSID encoder a part of each QAM modulator, or must PSID
information be inserted into each feed *prior* to being fed into the
modulator?

Transparent Video Systems, www.transparenvideo.net is doing this type of
thing with their Model DRM head end unit in a Single box with MULTIPLE tuners


The above link is lacking a 't' try:

www.transparentvideo.net

One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.

--
pj

Head-end Technicalities
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700, pj wrote:

Steve Urbach wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0400, (Cinder Lane) wrote:

What are the steps at a CATV head-end facility to convert 8VSB from an
off-air receiver to QAM for remodulation?

Must each subchannel be broken out and processed separately before being
recombined into its new channel?

Does each modulator have a finite number of inputs (for the
subchannels), or are the subchannels combined in a separate device
before being fed into the modulator?

Is the PSID encoder a part of each QAM modulator, or must PSID
information be inserted into each feed *prior* to being fed into the
modulator?

Transparent Video Systems, www.transparenvideo.net is doing this type of
thing with their Model DRM head end unit in a Single box with MULTIPLE tuners


The above link is lacking a 't' try:
My weak fingers... Sorry :-(



www.transparentvideo.net

One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.

Head-end Technicalities
 

On Apr 24, 9:00*pm, Steve Urbach
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700, pj wrote:
Steve Urbach wrote:
snip

Transparent Video Systems,www.transparenvideo.net*is doing this
type of
thing with their Model DRM *head end unit in a Single box with
MULTIPLE tuners

The above link is lacking a 't' *try:

My weak fingers... Sorry :-(



www.transparentvideo.net

One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.

You type the URLs? I type so poorly I only use ctrl-C aand ctrl-V
to copy and paste URLs so that I don't get "weak fingers"

GG

Head-end Technicalities
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0400 Cinder Lane wrote:

| What are the steps at a CATV head-end facility to convert 8VSB from an
| off-air receiver to QAM for remodulation?

Buy a box that does it, and configure it according to the system channel
scheme.


| Must each subchannel be broken out and processed separately before being
| recombined into its new channel?

Since QAM256 has twice the bandwidth as 8VSB (per 6 MHz), it would not make
sense not to break them out. They could pass the whole transport stream of
an off-air signal as-is to a cable channel. And maybe there is an easy way
to merge two of them together into one channel space on the cable. But the
approach to breaking them apart and arranging them in various ways on the
cable channel scheme provides the most flexibility.


| Does each modulator have a finite number of inputs (for the
| subchannels), or are the subchannels combined in a separate device
| before being fed into the modulator?

Now days, there's a big box doing lots of this at once, with plug in "blades"
for various modulators and demodulators. I don't know how many channels one
big box can do.


| Is the PSID encoder a part of each QAM modulator, or must PSID
| information be inserted into each feed *prior* to being fed into the
| modulator?

It is part of the bit stream that is assembled before modulation. A box that
primarily serves as a modulator may also be able to assemble the bit stream,
so I can't say just how the duties are divided up when separate boxes are being
used. It may vary depending on what boxes are used.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:

| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.

I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.

I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to medieval
torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each non-duplicate over
the air station in the market, in an unecrypted way.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities
 

On 26 Apr 2008 02:23:41 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

wrote in :

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:

| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.

I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.

One fiber could carry all of them,without compression.


I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to
medieval torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each
non-duplicate over the air station in the market, in an unecrypted
way.


Why? it's THEIR system(a business),not yours.
There is a FCC ruling. All or nothing sums it up. No picking off a single
channel.

Head-end Technicalities
 

On 26 Apr 2008 02:23:41 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:
| wrote in :
|
| On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:
|
|| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
|| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
|| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
|| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.
|
| I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.
|
| One fiber could carry all of them,without compression.

No doubt. However, these feeds are not leased dark fiber. They are almost
certainly leased circuits that happen to be delivered over fiber. A small
fraction of an OC-3 is sufficient to deliver the whole transport stream over
to the cable head end. Multiple such circuits could be delivered by the
providing telco on a single fiber.


| I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to
| medieval torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each
| non-duplicate over the air station in the market, in an unecrypted
| way.
|
|
| Why? it's THEIR system(a business),not yours.

It's the public airwaves. It should be all or nothing. If they want to opt
out of being a "provider OTA reception", that is the choice to make. If they
want to provide what goes over the air, they should provide it all. No "cherry
picking". It is in the public interest for them to carry all OTA channels for
many reasons. If they don't want to be the ones to do that, we need to get
someone else to do it.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:54:36 -0700 Steve Urbach wrote:
| On 26 Apr 2008 02:23:41 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
|
wrote in :
|
| On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:
|
|| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
|| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
|| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
|| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.
|
| I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.
|
|One fiber could carry all of them,without compression.
|
|
| I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to
| medieval torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each
| non-duplicate over the air station in the market, in an unecrypted
| way.
|
|
|Why? it's THEIR system(a business),not yours.
| There is a FCC ruling. All or nothing sums it up. No picking off a single
| channel.

But Mr. Yanik is of the opinion that because the cable company owns their own
system (of huge investment that would never be there if it had not started as
a guaranteed monopoly, a benefit no other company can ever now enjoy). So he
would argue that such an FCC rule would be wrong.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities
 

On 26 Apr 2008 18:21:20 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:

| cable companies are no longer "guaranteed monopolies".

This should be changed (back).


| They have satellite dishes as competition.

Pathetic competition that lacks local access channels, and in many areas
even lack local OTA channels (and these happen to be areas where getting
OTA is harder than average).


| also telcos are now supplying TV service.

In a few areas, yes. In most areas, Verizon's "TV" offering is DirecTV.
Not every one can use it. Many can't get local stations with it. No one
can get local access channels with it.


| Also,cable companies began as community antenna systems,in places where
| receiving OTA TV was difficult or impossible.No guaranteed monopoly
| there,either.

Actually, that's not true. Quite many, probably most, had the monopoly.

The cable system my grandfather built didn't have a legal monopoly, but
that's mostly because the town had no idea of such things, and he was the
only one in town that understood how it worked. That was back in 1952
and it only had two channels on the system.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

On 26 Apr 2008 18:23:22 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:
| wrote in :
|
| On 26 Apr 2008 02:23:41 GMT Jim Yanik wrote:
|| wrote in
|| :
||
|| On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:36:33 -0700 pj wrote:
||
||| One of the local Cox guys told me that, in San
||| Diego, each of the 'must carry' stations
||| provides a fiber feed from the studio to Cox.
||| This bypasses the whole OTA/8VSB issue.
||
|| I'm curious if that includes all of their subchannels.
||
|| One fiber could carry all of them,without compression.
|
| No doubt. However, these feeds are not leased dark fiber. They are
| almost certainly leased circuits that happen to be delivered over
| fiber. A small fraction of an OC-3 is sufficient to deliver the whole
| transport stream over to the cable head end. Multiple such circuits
| could be delivered by the providing telco on a single fiber.
|
|
|| I'm one of those people that wants to subject cable company CEOs to
|| medieval torture if they don't carry the entire bit stream of each
|| non-duplicate over the air station in the market, in an unecrypted
|| way.
||
||
|| Why? it's THEIR system(a business),not yours.
|
| It's the public airwaves.
|
| Not CABLE.

If the cable system wants to be a provider of receiving public airwaves,
they need to do it on an all or nothing basis. Their choice.

The reason the choice needs to be this way is so that if they elect not to
provide OTA reception service, someone else can.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Head-end Technicalities
 

Head-end Technicalities