US ATSC conversion: with 700 some odd days until NTSC is turned off, you would think that US TV stations would run a dayly counter...

"Mark Crispin" wrote in message
...

snip


Bottom line: the number of RVers who depend upon OTA analog TV are a small
(and shrinking) minority.

-- Mark --

Thanks. I stand corrected.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sal M. Onella wrote:
In San Diego, I can get OTA DTV from
the LA market most of the time with a good roof antenna, sometimes just with
a simple bow-tie. However, there is JUST ONE station from LA carried on our
cable system, despite its being a very big, very high-quality system. I
want my legacy TV's to be able to get LA at my whim.
People in or between other city pairs are apt to be of the same mind.

You should be happy that the US choose the 8-VSB (ATSC) system for digital
TV, and NOT one of the COFDM-based modulations.

Although there is no guarantee that you'll be able to receive ATSC signals
from LA in San Diego, at least you have a fighting chance. One of the
features of ATSC is its superior performance over longer distances. It is
reasonable to assume that equipment and performance will continue to
improve over time.

The various COFDM-based modulations used in Europe and Asia are all
short-range. I have digital TV coverage maps for Japan, and in places the
coverage range is as little as 10km (6 miles) from the transmitter. The
longest distance coverage that I saw was about 40km; that wouldn't even
get you out of LA!

You'll occasionally hear from cranks and crackpots who claim that COFDM is
"better" because it reportedly works better in cars or trains. Japan's
mobile digital TV craps out once the vehicle gets much above 20km/h; I
know this first-hand. Another crank argument is because of a silly
pseudo-test years ago, when one of the Crank Brigade had trouble using an
indoor loop antenna to receive ATSC inside a Manhattan apartment.

If the Crank Brigade had had their way, not only would you not be able to
get LA TV in San Diego, you wouldn't be able to get Orange County TV
either; Orange County would be a completely different set of stations
since you wouldn't pick up LA in Anaheim. The northern part of San Diego
County would be yet another market. So you'd be 3-4 markets away from LA.

-- Mark --

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sal M. Onella wrote:
In San Diego, I can get OTA DTV from
the LA market most of the time with a good roof antenna, sometimes
just with
a simple bow-tie. However, there is JUST ONE station from LA carried
on our
cable system, despite its being a very big, very high-quality system. I
want my legacy TV's to be able to get LA at my whim.
People in or between other city pairs are apt to be of the same mind.

You should be happy that the US choose the 8-VSB (ATSC) system for
digital TV, and NOT one of the COFDM-based modulations.

Although there is no guarantee that you'll be able to receive ATSC
signals from LA in San Diego, at least you have a fighting chance. One
of the features of ATSC is its superior performance over longer
distances.

Yes ATSC is slightly more optimised for distance, but at the same time
it NEEDS to be since you need a huge single transmitter to serve a wide
area. With COFDM DVB-T you have the benefit of single frequency networks
which can use multiple transmitter sites on the same frequency to fill
in all the blackspots in coverage with overall less power wasted.

It is reasonable to assume that equipment and performance
will continue to improve over time.

It damn sure needs to improve since ATSC was inferior from day 1.

The various COFDM-based modulations used in Europe and Asia are all
short-range. I have digital TV coverage maps for Japan, and in places
the coverage range is as little as 10km (6 miles) from the transmitter.
The longest distance coverage that I saw was about 40km; that wouldn't
even get you out of LA!

Stop spreading BS. The coverage is only small due to lower power levels.
Here in Australia the COFDM DVB-T transmissions have adequate coverage
of 140+km (usually only limited by the height of the transmitter and
terrain obstructions) with viewers with high gain antennas can receive
it past 200km.
Have a look at the coverage map:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=2969&presdir=

You'll occasionally hear from cranks and crackpots who claim that COFDM
is "better" because it reportedly works better in cars or trains.
Japan's mobile digital TV craps out once the vehicle gets much above
20km/h; I know this first-hand. Another crank argument is because of a
silly pseudo-test years ago, when one of the Crank Brigade had trouble
using an indoor loop antenna to receive ATSC inside a Manhattan apartment.

If the Crank Brigade had had their way, not only would you not be able
to get LA TV in San Diego, you wouldn't be able to get Orange County TV
either; Orange County would be a completely different set of stations
since you wouldn't pick up LA in Anaheim. The northern part of San
Diego County would be yet another market. So you'd be 3-4 markets away
from LA.

-- Mark --

You're more than welcome to keep your inferior ATSC standard just like
your crap NTSC standard within U.S. borders (along with a long list of
incompatible standards and the imperial unit measurement system). The
rest of the world will adopt the best system for digital terrestrial TV
which is COFDM DVB-T.

"davmel" wrote in message
...
Mark Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sal M. Onella wrote:
In San Diego, I can get OTA DTV from
the LA market most of the time with a good roof antenna, sometimes just
with
a simple bow-tie. However, there is JUST ONE station from LA carried on
our
cable system, despite its being a very big, very high-quality system. I
want my legacy TV's to be able to get LA at my whim.
People in or between other city pairs are apt to be of the same mind.

You should be happy that the US choose the 8-VSB (ATSC) system for
digital TV, and NOT one of the COFDM-based modulations.

Although there is no guarantee that you'll be able to receive ATSC
signals from LA in San Diego, at least you have a fighting chance. One
of the features of ATSC is its superior performance over longer
distances.

Yes ATSC is slightly more optimised for distance, but at the same time it
NEEDS to be since you need a huge single transmitter to serve a wide area.
With COFDM DVB-T you have the benefit of single frequency networks which
can use multiple transmitter sites on the same frequency to fill in all
the blackspots in coverage with overall less power wasted.

It is reasonable to assume that equipment and performance will continue
to improve over time.

It damn sure needs to improve since ATSC was inferior from day 1.

The various COFDM-based modulations used in Europe and Asia are all
short-range. I have digital TV coverage maps for Japan, and in places
the coverage range is as little as 10km (6 miles) from the transmitter.
The longest distance coverage that I saw was about 40km; that wouldn't
even get you out of LA!

Stop spreading BS. The coverage is only small due to lower power levels.
Here in Australia the COFDM DVB-T transmissions have adequate coverage of
140+km (usually only limited by the height of the transmitter and terrain
obstructions) with viewers with high gain antennas can receive it past
200km.
Have a look at the coverage map:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=2969&presdir=

You'll occasionally hear from cranks and crackpots who claim that COFDM
is "better" because it reportedly works better in cars or trains.
Japan's mobile digital TV craps out once the vehicle gets much above
20km/h; I know this first-hand. Another crank argument is because of a
silly pseudo-test years ago, when one of the Crank Brigade had trouble
using an indoor loop antenna to receive ATSC inside a Manhattan
apartment.

If the Crank Brigade had had their way, not only would you not be able to
get LA TV in San Diego, you wouldn't be able to get Orange County TV
either; Orange County would be a completely different set of stations
since you wouldn't pick up LA in Anaheim. The northern part of San Diego
County would be yet another market. So you'd be 3-4 markets away from
LA.

-- Mark --

You're more than welcome to keep your inferior ATSC standard just like
your crap NTSC standard within U.S. borders (along with a long list of
incompatible standards and the imperial unit measurement system). The rest
of the world will adopt the best system for digital terrestrial TV which
is COFDM DVB-T.

That's funny, through all the years of reading your forums, I had the
impression your bit-starved Australian system was considered pretty much a
laughing stock.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, davmel wrote:
Yes ATSC is slightly more optimised for distance, but at the same time it
NEEDS to be since you need a huge single transmitter to serve a wide area.
With COFDM DVB-T you have the benefit of single frequency networks which can
use multiple transmitter sites on the same frequency to fill in all the
blackspots in coverage with overall less power wasted.

Correction:

With COFDM DVB-T you need to use single frequency networks with multiple
transmitter sites on the same frequency to fill in all the blackspots in
coverage. This is because COFDM modulations waste much more power when
they try to cover a large area.

Of course, these SFNs aren't actually deployed. The Australian maps make
that quite clear.

It is reasonable to assume that equipment and performance will continue to
improve over time.
It damn sure needs to improve since ATSC was inferior from day 1.

Which is why there are far more HDTV broadcasters using ATSC than any
COFDM modulation.

In the language of COFDM, "inferior" means "better".

The various COFDM-based modulations used in Europe and Asia are all
short-range. I have digital TV coverage maps for Japan, and in places the
coverage range is as little as 10km (6 miles) from the transmitter. The
longest distance coverage that I saw was about 40km; that wouldn't even get
you out of LA!
Stop spreading BS. The coverage is only small due to lower power levels.

Golly gee, most US digital TV broadcasters are also at lower power levels.

I guess that lower power levels is only an excuse when it's COFDM.

Here
in Australia the COFDM DVB-T transmissions have adequate coverage of 140+km
(usually only limited by the height of the transmitter and terrain
obstructions) with viewers with high gain antennas can receive it past 200km.
Have a look at the coverage map:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=2969&presdir=

I would expect that Melbourne would have a powerful transmitter (although
note that shadow near Pakenham; must be a mountain there). It is a major
metropolis. But when we look elsewhere, we see such maps as:

http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...d=148&presdir=

OK, I picked an obviously dinky town. But what about Canberra, with this
somewhat underwhelming coverage area?

http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...d=885&presdir=

And what the hell is "adequate" supposed to mean? Digital either works or
it doesn't. There's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant".

Perhaps by "adequate" they mean "a signal occasionally shows up".

What happens when you open a refrigerator door? Or the furnace kicks in.
Love those impulse noise effects. Got to see them first-hand in Japan.

You're more than welcome to keep your inferior ATSC standard just like your
crap NTSC standard within U.S. borders (along with a long list of
incompatible standards and the imperial unit measurement system).

We will, quite happily.

We have quite a bit of HDTV now, and are thoroughly enjoying it. In the
Australian digital TV forums, you Aussies seem to be complaining a lot
about the lack of true HDTV...and reception difficulties.

Seattle, a third-rate US city, has 14 (or 16, depending upon you count)
digital broadcasters, offering 8 HDTV channels and 26 SD channels of
programming. Tokyo, a first-rate Japanese city, has only 7 (or 8). How
many digital broadcasters do you have in Australia, eh?

NTSC has better color (particularly green) than PAL. PAL was a clever
workaround for the inferior vacuum tube tuners prior to the mid 1970s.
With modern electronics, that phase change just steals bandwidth. Then
there's that flickery 50Hz, which is a lot more noticable than the extra
100 lines.

We don't use Imperial units. The similarly-named American units are all
defined in metric terms, and are different from Imperial units. For
example, an American foot is exactly 30.48cm (although for most purposes
305mm is good enough).

But it does **** off your manufacturers when they want to produce
something for the US market; they have to pay for a completely separate
set of tooling. That is only the reason why you care.

The rest of
the world will adopt the best system for digital terrestrial TV which is
COFDM DVB-T.

The Japanese, Chinese, and Brazilians don't agree. They choose a COFDM
based system, but it isn't DVB-T.

It's the NTSC vs. PAL vs. SECAM catfight all over again; and for all the
same reasons.

If the US had chosen DVB-T, Australia would have chosen ATSC. It's all
about protectionism.

The US market is the largest market in the world and is price-sensitive.
Every manufacturer sells cheaper in the US than in their home country.
Australians (and Japanese and Chinese and Europeans) pay more so that
Americans pay less. If American HDTVs worked in Australia there would be
one hell of a grey market importing cheap TVs.

Ever notice DVD regions? Ever notice how Americans rarely seem to care
about multi-region DVD players? We get them at a (much) lower price than
you. Even foreign-produced movies are cheaper in the US than in their
country of origin.

It was a nice flame you sent. Better luck next time.

-- Mark --

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

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, David wrote:
That's funny, through all the years of reading your forums, I had the
impression your bit-starved Australian system was considered pretty much a
laughing stock.

Of course it is, but you don't want to confuse him with too many facts.

-- Mark --

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

"davmel" wrote in message
...

You're more than welcome to keep your inferior ATSC standard just like
your crap NTSC standard within U.S. borders (along with a long list of
incompatible standards and the imperial unit measurement system).

Funny thing about measurement systems. I watched a feed from Oz of a
golf tournament once where the announcer described a 300 meter drive,
followed by a 140 meter iron to the green, followed by a 10-foot putt.
A nice multi system approach!! :-)

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com

"Mark Crispin" wrote in message
...

snip

You'll occasionally hear from cranks and crackpots who claim that COFDM is
"better" because it reportedly works better in cars or trains. Japan's
mobile digital TV craps out once the vehicle gets much above 20km/h; I
know this first-hand. Another crank argument is because of a silly
pseudo-test years ago, when one of the Crank Brigade had trouble using an
indoor loop antenna to receive ATSC inside a Manhattan apartment.

I'm a bit off-topic with this next, but maybe you know: Some public transit
vehicles in and around San Diego are demonstrating live video from
somewhere. It's news, weather and features, all fast paced and light. It
doesn't seem to have sound or to need it, but does seem to be motion video
and it seems to work OK, even at 50 MPH. It's only on a few vehicles and I
really have just caught it a few times. I know Qualcomm has an experimental
digital transmitter on UHF Ch 53 and this could be the service.

Can you shed any light on it? (I haven't done any research at the transit
authority's website. Full details might be there in plain sight.)

Thanks.

David wrote:
That's funny, through all the years of reading your forums, I had the
impression your bit-starved Australian system was considered pretty much a
laughing stock.

I would hardly call it bit starved. With a 23Mbps transport stream you
won't get more than a 13-15Mbps HD video channel plus a 6-7Mbps SD video
channel plus a 1.5Mbps video programme guide plus multiple dolby digital
and MPEG audio streams.
Do the broadcasters in the U.S. transmit multiple SD channels plus a HD
channel 24/7? If they did they would also have a 'bit-starved' video stream.
We have a nice hybrid system with multiple widescreen standard
definition channels like the Europeans plus HD video like other markets
such as the U.S on the same terrestrial transport stream.

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, davmel wrote:
Yes ATSC is slightly more optimised for distance, but at the same time
it NEEDS to be since you need a huge single transmitter to serve a
wide area. With COFDM DVB-T you have the benefit of single frequency
networks which can use multiple transmitter sites on the same
frequency to fill in all the blackspots in coverage with overall less
power wasted.

Correction:

With COFDM DVB-T you need to use single frequency networks with multiple
transmitter sites on the same frequency to fill in all the blackspots in
coverage. This is because COFDM modulations waste much more power when
they try to cover a large area.

Of course, these SFNs aren't actually deployed. The Australian maps
make that quite clear.

Really? The maps show the coverage of that single transmission site, NOT
the full SFN coverage area.
Take these two overlapping sites for example:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=5441&presdir=
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=5438&presdir=

They BOTH operate on the SAME frequency. You'll find that all the infill
coverage transmitters operate on the same SFN frequency.

It is reasonable to assume that equipment and performance will
continue to improve over time.
It damn sure needs to improve since ATSC was inferior from day 1.

Which is why there are far more HDTV broadcasters using ATSC than any
COFDM modulation.

That will change dramatically when Europe and Asia provide more HD
programming using DVB-T.
This map of digital terrestrial standards shows that most of the world's
population is certainly not going with ATSC:
http://www.paradiso-design.net/revim...B-T_032006.gif

In the language of COFDM, "inferior" means "better".

If most of the world's population has an "inferior" standard that
provides lower cost equipment through greater unit volumes then I
suspect most end users would prefer that system.
Unless of course a certain standards committee bribes government
officials in that country to adopt a "better" standard that favours
domestic manufacturers and patent holders at the expense of end users.

The various COFDM-based modulations used in Europe and Asia are all
short-range. I have digital TV coverage maps for Japan, and in
places the coverage range is as little as 10km (6 miles) from the
transmitter. The longest distance coverage that I saw was about
40km; that wouldn't even get you out of LA!
Stop spreading BS. The coverage is only small due to lower power levels.

Golly gee, most US digital TV broadcasters are also at lower power levels.

Yeah, but since you can't have single frequency networks you need to
waste an enormous number of TV channel spectrum to avoid interference.

I guess that lower power levels is only an excuse when it's COFDM.

Here in Australia the COFDM DVB-T transmissions have adequate coverage
of 140+km (usually only limited by the height of the transmitter and
terrain obstructions) with viewers with high gain antennas can receive
it past 200km.
Have a look at the coverage map:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=2969&presdir=


I would expect that Melbourne would have a powerful transmitter
(although note that shadow near Pakenham; must be a mountain there). It

Yes, that's the southern end of the Dandenong Ranges.

is a major metropolis. But when we look elsewhere, we see such maps as:

http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...d=148&presdir=

Yep, that transmitter covers the twin towns of Albury/Wodonga quite
adequately and matches the analogue coverage there for that infill
transmitter.
The main transmitter site for that area is a bit further south and
covers a much larger area:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...=5472&presdir=

OK, I picked an obviously dinky town. But what about Canberra, with
this somewhat underwhelming coverage area?

http://www2b.abc.net.au/reception/fr...d=885&presdir=

If you check the scale on that map the coverage area extends out close
to 200km (hardly underwhelming)

And what the hell is "adequate" supposed to mean? Digital either works
or it doesn't. There's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant".

It means a typical house with an external medium gain antenna pointed in
the right direction will pick up the signal reliably. The signal can be
picked up much further than those maps show by using a tall mast and
high gain antenna.

Perhaps by "adequate" they mean "a signal occasionally shows up".

What happens when you open a refrigerator door? Or the furnace kicks
in. Love those impulse noise effects. Got to see them first-hand in Japan.

Broad spectrum impulse noise will affect all transmissions including
analogue/ATSC/DVB-T etc., that's why you use decent quality coax. I
happen to live North of Pakenham which you pointed out earlier and the
only time I've had signal dropouts or any interference was when
lightning directly HIT the transmitter site. I'm amongst the
overwhelming majority that couldn't fault the DVB-T transmissions. Sure
you'll here people whinge about digital TV in oz, but you should expect
crap signal quality if you use a rabbit ears antenna in some canyon.

You're more than welcome to keep your inferior ATSC standard just like
your crap NTSC standard within U.S. borders (along with a long list of
incompatible standards and the imperial unit measurement system).

We will, quite happily.

We have quite a bit of HDTV now, and are thoroughly enjoying it. In the
Australian digital TV forums, you Aussies seem to be complaining a lot
about the lack of true HDTV...and reception difficulties.

Pretty much the only gripe we have is that one of our broadcasters (Ch
7) considers 576p to be HD as a pathetic attempt to circumvent the
government requirement for all digital licence holders to broadcast in HD.
However Ch 7 have no interest in HD so they get by with the loop hole
that 576p is HD which ****es off a lot of viewers since they have the
rights to a lot of NBC and other network content.

Seattle, a third-rate US city, has 14 (or 16, depending upon you count)
digital broadcasters, offering 8 HDTV channels and 26 SD channels of
programming. Tokyo, a first-rate Japanese city, has only 7 (or 8). How
many digital broadcasters do you have in Australia, eh?

A grand total of 5 but given that our population of 20million is spread
out over an area the size of the U.S. the market can't sustain more tv
networks with the available advertising revenue. I for one would prefer
quality over quantity.
It's preferable to having 500 channels of crap like in the U.S.

NTSC has better color (particularly green) than PAL. PAL was a clever
workaround for the inferior vacuum tube tuners prior to the mid 1970s.
With modern electronics, that phase change just steals bandwidth. Then
there's that flickery 50Hz, which is a lot more noticable than the extra
100 lines.

Interesting that you point out a better particular colour for NTSC which
stands for Never Twice the Same Colour.

We don't use Imperial units. The similarly-named American units are all
defined in metric terms, and are different from Imperial units. For
example, an American foot is exactly 30.48cm (although for most purposes
305mm is good enough).

But it does **** off your manufacturers when they want to produce
something for the US market; they have to pay for a completely separate
set of tooling. That is only the reason why you care.
The rest of the world will adopt the best system for digital
terrestrial TV which is COFDM DVB-T.

The Japanese, Chinese, and Brazilians don't agree. They choose a COFDM
based system, but it isn't DVB-T.

It's the NTSC vs. PAL vs. SECAM catfight all over again; and for all the
same reasons.

And not surprisingly the countries that had PAL are going with DVB-T and
the ones that had NTSC are going in the direction of ATSC.

If the US had chosen DVB-T, Australia would have chosen ATSC. It's all
about protectionism.

Rubbish. The only highly protected market left is the USA. The US
government is a proxy for the wealthy lobby groups that line the pockets
of senators with cash so that their particular standard or technology it
adopted rather than what is best for the population.
Australia would never have gone with ATSC, we just followed what the
Europeans did just like almost every other standard. That's just a
result of having a history as a British colony WITHOUT a revolution!

The US market is the largest market in the world and is price-sensitive.

ROTFL. Is that what they're teaching you in Geography these days? You
might want to check on the population of China and India which are
certainly NOT adopting ATSC.

Every manufacturer sells cheaper in the US than in their home country.

You'll find hardware in China/Japan/Taiwan (where almost all electronic
hardware is now built) to be MUCH cheaper than in the U.S. thanks to
protectionist import tariffs.

Australians (and Japanese and Chinese and Europeans) pay more so that
Americans pay less. If American HDTVs worked in Australia there would
be one hell of a grey market importing cheap TVs.

You must be living in a fantasy land, we import equipment cheaply from
places like China where it's manufactured, not from secondary markets
like the U.S. where the manufacturing base has died.

Ever notice DVD regions? Ever notice how Americans rarely seem to care
about multi-region DVD players?

That's because you've been distracted by all the crap that comes out of
Hollywood to notice all the great content that comes from international
sources. Most Americans wouldn't bother with content if it wasn't in
English (with or without subtitles).

We get them at a (much) lower price
than you. Even foreign-produced movies are cheaper in the US than in
their country of origin.

That's only the result of price fixing by the movie studios and their
distributors. They charge whatever price a market will bear.
As a general rule I would much prefer a 576 line PAL region 2 or 4 DVD
to a 480 line NTSC version, but the exact choice would come down to
which version was mastered better.


It was a nice flame you sent. Better luck next time.

The flame wars have only just begun.....