Death of OTA Broadcasting

Alan Larson writes:

In article you write:

How can both sides be "good points?" Because it depends on where the
transition is between digital "good picture" and digital "bad
picture." I think it may be the case (and some folks' experience here,
including mine, support this), that the transition point occurs under
conditions in which an analog TV signal (with the same parameters, i.e.,
same transmitter location, same transmitter power, same receiver antenna
and location, etc.) would be very watchable.

Well, my experience here is that the transition point is often where
the analog picture is unwatchable.

We have quite a few channels where the digital is near the analog in
frequency, and the digital comes in perfectly all the time, and the analog
is so bad from weak signal and ghosting that it is unwatchable (and the
sound is generally noisy and hard to listen to).

And how have you verified that the parameters are the same? Especially
transmitter location and power?

Case-in-point: I live about 18 miles from Raleigh, NC, which is home
to one of the largest and most advanced HDTV stations in the country -
WRAL. I found that I had to purchase a rather large UHF antenna (it's
in the attic, but just barely, and I have a big house) to be able to
receive WRAL's HDTV signal without experiencing random dropouts. By
"dropout" I mean a section of time, ranging from 10 seconds to several
minutes, when the picture would severly pixelate, freeze, or go
completely blank.

I daresay that an analog signal at my location would be clearly watchable.

Have you tested it?

No. I'm not sure it could be tested since transmitter frequency, power
and location are all subject to be different.

Now if that were my experience alone, then there could be many alternative
reasons for this (bad cable, bad connectors, bad HDTV receiver {which is,
BTW, a DISH network 6000 with the extra VSB module installed}, etc.). But
other people have been experiencing the same type of problem, from what
I can gather.

Lots of people report the opposite -- that digital is clearly
better than analog for reliability and usability.

Really? "Lots"? Most consumers wouldn't know how to properly do a
test like this.

My theory is that most HDTV receiver designs require a relative high
SNR to avoid dropouts, and I suspect that this is a result of the
choices made in the HDTV standard, e.g., choices in the forward error
correction used, the base modulation, and/or other design decisions in
the construction of the standard. For example, the "vestigial"
character of 8 VSB is a waste of transmitter power - there are myriad
other digital comm designs that use PAM (which, essentially, is what
8VSB is, 8-level PAM) without transmitting a vestigal carrier

However, PAM is double sideband, and has a carrier component.

DSB PAM is DSB. SSB PAM is (guess what?) SSB. See, e.g., [proakiscomm].
Folks have been doing that spectrum efficiency trick for a half-century.

PAM (either sort) has no carrier component when the typical alphabet
is utilized (+/ 1, +/- 3, etc.) - there is no DC component at
baseband (assuming symbols are uncorrelated).

It would seem that 8vsb is spectrally more efficient.

So is one of the simplest digital comm signals known to man (e.g.,
SSB PAM).

However, it's just a theory. This is a highly complex situation that
obviously requires a lot of investigation and engineering.

And quite a few folks spent a bunch of years doing just that.

Maybe they need their calculations checked, because something isn't
adding up.

--Randy

@Book{ proakiscomm,
title = "{Digital Communications}",
author = "John~G.~Proakis",
publisher = "McGraw-Hill",
edition = "fourth",
year = "2001"
}
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

wrote in message
...
Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

But what abt a 14.1" inch notebook

Too small?

I don't think it's too small if it's your only option. A few months
ago, we experienced a long power outage here, ~ 20 hours. During that
time, we watched a DVD movie on my laptop.... placed it on the coffee
table and the two of us sat right before it on the couch. After a
short time, you get into the movie, and the screen you're watching it
on doesn't seem to matter all that much.

OK thanks

I hate to buy a laptop any bigger than 14" cause I want
something portable and easier to carry to say a coffee
shop....when on road with RV


You're really limiting your choices... there are trillions of 15" laptops
out there.

Get a 15", your eyes will thank you later.

"David" wrote:

You're really limiting your choices... there are trillions of 15" laptops
out there.

Get a 15", your eyes will thank you later.

But I have to carry it inside coffee shops and such
when on road

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Gonzo" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Gonzo" writes:

Now we have to pay for TV and we are still force fed advertisments
as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too.

Amen, brother! I second that.

This will however change in the digital age.

Huh? I only see it getting worse. As more and more
lawyers get involved and DRM gets more entrenched,
our options get smaller.

Well the entire idea behind the Government mandate

Government mandate? I have no idea what you're referring to.
snip

This applies to the U.S. only AFAIK.

My understanding is the feds gave broadcasters a set date to switch to
digital and gave them channels for digital broadcasts.

Currently these channels are being used for analog AFAIK.

Feds also mandated a requirement that broadcasters provide content for free
OTA in digital HD if they wanted these channels assigned too them (as a
stipulation).

I am not sure about the details but Im sure that somebody else will chime in
on this.

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:37:20 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
news:[email protected] a.ca...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like
you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people
get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on
the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for
300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one
TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What
else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not
made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to
save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until
you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and
we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six
the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or
satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension
skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I
will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

It's very simple Thumper. You have a knack for taking something simple
and
making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Let me try to explain it too you again:

In the 70s OTA was paid for by the advertisers and not by the consumer.


It still is.

And what exactly makes you think that I and everyone else are not aware of
that? What is your point exactly IOW?

What is your motivation to post what is obvious to everyone else? It's not
like anyone disputed the above fact.

In the 80s we all flocked over to Cable and we became the monetary
supporters of it.


My comment is simply trying to convey the fact that I find it ironic that
even though we are paying for cable and satellite, we are still force fed
advertisements.


WE are force fed nothing. What we pay for is a different delivery of
signals to the home plus more channels that one cannot receive OTA.
OTA and Cable/satellite are not the same product.

$50+ per month for delivery? I think not.

Your mindset is exactly what the broadcasters want you to think. I do not
see it that way. Fact is, with cable and satelite you are paying for more
than just the delivery so you are out of line by posting something as a fact
when it is not.

Again, do you work for or own stock in cable or satelite? Makes me wonder.

In other words the broadcasters are getting the best of both worlds and we
are paying for it. This is one of the reasons (besides monetary) that I
will go OTA only. It's a matter of pricinpal.


Principle? Do what you want but falsely claiming that you are being
force fed commercials is laughable.

And your counter arguments hold no water and zero logic.
I tend to question your motivation.


Do you understand now?

Yes it's just as I said in the first place.
Thumper

Seems you have an ax to grind with me Mr. Thumper.

Care to clue me in as to what you have up your bum and why you even care
what I think?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:37:20 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
news:[email protected] ma.ca...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like
you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people
get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on
the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for
300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one
TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What
else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not
made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to
save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until
you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and
we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six
the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or
satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension
skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I
will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

It's very simple Thumper. You have a knack for taking something simple
and
making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Let me try to explain it too you again:

In the 70s OTA was paid for by the advertisers and not by the consumer.


It still is.

And what exactly makes you think that I and everyone else are not aware of
that? What is your point exactly IOW?

What is your motivation to post what is obvious to everyone else? It's not
like anyone disputed the above fact.

In the 80s we all flocked over to Cable and we became the monetary
supporters of it.


My comment is simply trying to convey the fact that I find it ironic that
even though we are paying for cable and satellite, we are still force fed
advertisements.


WE are force fed nothing. What we pay for is a different delivery of
signals to the home plus more channels that one cannot receive OTA.
OTA and Cable/satellite are not the same product.

$50+ per month for delivery? I think not.

Your mindset is exactly what the broadcasters want you to think. I do not
see it that way. Fact is, with cable and satelite you are paying for more
than just the delivery so you are out of line by posting something as a fact
when it is not.

Again, do you work for or own stock in cable or satelite? Makes me wonder.

In other words the broadcasters are getting the best of both worlds and we
are paying for it. This is one of the reasons (besides monetary) that I
will go OTA only. It's a matter of pricinpal.


Principle? Do what you want but falsely claiming that you are being
force fed commercials is laughable.

And your counter arguments hold no water and zero logic.
I tend to question your motivation.


Do you understand now?

Yes it's just as I said in the first place.
Thumper

Seems you have an ax to grind with me Mr. Thumper.

Care to clue me in as to what you have up your bum and why you even care
what I think?

Seems to me that you're the one with the agenda here. You bitch about
being force fed commercials when nothing could be further from the
truth. Whom do you think pays for the programs you see on tv? Do you
think they are free? Do you really think that Cable/Satellite should
deliver the same programs free of charge? Who would pay the
additional cost of that delivery? If you don't want to subscribe to
cable then simply don't and stop bitching because they won't deliver
the programming for free.
Thumper

In article "Gonzo" writes:

This applies to the U.S. only AFAIK.

My understanding is the feds gave broadcasters a set date to switch to
digital and gave them channels for digital broadcasts.

Currently these channels are being used for analog AFAIK.

These channels are being used for digital, not analog.

Feds also mandated a requirement that broadcasters provide content for free
OTA in digital HD if they wanted these channels assigned too them (as a
stipulation).

Nope. No requirement of HD. This has been explained in this group several
times so far this year.


Alan

Alan wrote:
In article "Gonzo" writes:

This applies to the U.S. only AFAIK.

My understanding is the feds gave broadcasters a set date to switch to
digital and gave them channels for digital broadcasts.

Currently these channels are being used for analog AFAIK.

These channels are being used for digital, not analog.

Feds also mandated a requirement that broadcasters provide content for free
OTA in digital HD if they wanted these channels assigned too them (as a
stipulation).

Nope. No requirement of HD. This has been explained in this group several
times so far this year.


Alan
And don't expect a lot of HD once broadcasters get their cherished must
carry multicast from Congress. After all they have spent many millions
on this for the last seven years.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:
Alan wrote:
In article "Gonzo"
writes:

This applies to the U.S. only AFAIK.

My understanding is the feds gave broadcasters a set date to switch to
digital and gave them channels for digital broadcasts.

Currently these channels are being used for analog AFAIK.

These channels are being used for digital, not analog.

Feds also mandated a requirement that broadcasters provide content for
free OTA in digital HD if they wanted these channels assigned too them
(as a stipulation).

Nope. No requirement of HD. This has been explained in this group
several times so far this year.


Alan
And don't expect a lot of HD once broadcasters get their cherished must
carry multicast from Congress. After all they have spent many millions
on this for the last seven years.

Bob Miller


Kind of like all of the money that you have spent (lost) trying to get your precious modulation scam approved?

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
The first market that is big enough where COFDM based HD receivers will be
sold using the world standard OTA modulation, DVB-T/H, will be France.
This will be the first time a significant sized market will see the sale
of HD COFDM receivers using the world standard DVB-T. Both Japan and
Australia are limited. Australia by population size, channel size and a
few other peculiarities. Japan just because it is a one country market for
the modulation, Brazil is a not factor so far. France on the other hand is
one of many DVB-T/H countries though the first using it for HD. I expect
to see low priced HD receivers there.


They're already selling MPEG4 HD DVB-T receivers in France;
http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/article.asp?PRID=1852300

I don't know that they're all that low priced though at ?250 each...