ASTC 8VSB not a bad choice for Canada, as 95% of the househoulds get TV via cable -- where 256 QAM is the standard...

Bob Miller wrote:

And in ALL the coverage area from one inch to the far field
8-VSB was subject to all the problems presented by static
and dynamic multipath.

Clearly not. The reason being that the further you get from the
transmitter, the weaker any reflections will be, to the point that
they reach below the sensitivity limit of the receiver. For example,
if the main path has been attenuated to -70 dBm, let's say, many of
those early receivers were unable to detect anything much weaker than
that. So a reflection of -75 dBm signal strength was non-existent, as
far as those receivers were concerned. Closer in, such a -5 dB echo
might have been far more problematic, depending how delayed or
advanced it was.

That's why the Sinclair tests of 1999 showed better performance at
long range from 8-VSB, even if not by as much as it should have been.
It's a tradeoff, and is becoming more insignificant all the time.

If you want to know the value of spectrum with COFDM check out the UK

You're missing the point. In the UK, something like 65 percent of
households use OTA TV, meaning analog or digital. In Australia, 75
percent. In the US, only 15 percent of households use OTA exclusively,
although upwards of 30 percent use it overall (e.g. in combination
with DBS or for second and third sets).

This has nothing to do with modulation. This trend started a long time
ago, way before DTT, and has everything to do with the extra choice
cable offers that Americans eagerly subscribe to get. It has
everything to do with the fact that broadcasters notice such prevalent
use of cable and DBS, and spend all their time obsessing over getting
content over those media, much less time obsessing over their OTA
streams. It has to do with how easy it is to get American consumers to
subscribe to TV distribution services, vs. people from some other
countries.

wait for the auctions of 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 here in the US next
spring.

I'm waiting with baited breath, not just for the auctions, but also to
see what use is made of this spectrum. I'll bet you a very hefty sum
that if someone uses those channels simply to offer a COFDM version of
OTA TV, they will get nowhere at all.

Bert

Albert Manfredi wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:

And in ALL the coverage area from one inch to the far field
8-VSB was subject to all the problems presented by static
and dynamic multipath.

Clearly not. The reason being that the further you get from the
transmitter, the weaker any reflections will be, to the point that
they reach below the sensitivity limit of the receiver. For example,
if the main path has been attenuated to -70 dBm, let's say, many of
those early receivers were unable to detect anything much weaker than
that. So a reflection of -75 dBm signal strength was non-existent, as
far as those receivers were concerned. Closer in, such a -5 dB echo
might have been far more problematic, depending how delayed or
advanced it was.

I believe that the primary signal decays at the same rate with distance
as any reflected signal so their relationship should remain very
similar. The main reason that you have less multipath in the far field
is that there are less tall buildings, low flying aircraft and traffic
of all sorts. And you can blame problems on distance instead of
multipath so multipath is misdiagnosed more.

That's why the Sinclair tests of 1999 showed better performance at
long range from 8-VSB, even if not by as much as it should have been.
It's a tradeoff, and is becoming more insignificant all the time.

If you want to know the value of spectrum with COFDM check out the UK

You're missing the point. In the UK, something like 65 percent of
households use OTA TV, meaning analog or digital. In Australia, 75
percent. In the US, only 15 percent of households use OTA exclusively,
although upwards of 30 percent use it overall (e.g. in combination
with DBS or for second and third sets).

And I think that you continue to miss the point. The US has more cable
and satellite users but if we had a decent modulation we would have seen
major competition from OTA the last seven years.

This has nothing to do with modulation. This trend started a long time
ago, way before DTT, and has everything to do with the extra choice
cable offers that Americans eagerly subscribe to get.

Has everything to do with modulation. A decent modulation would have
drastically turned the cable vs. OTA situation around. The fact that a
trend started a long time ago has no bearing on the start of a new trend.

It has
everything to do with the fact that broadcasters notice such prevalent
use of cable and DBS, and spend all their time obsessing over getting
content over those media, much less time obsessing over their OTA
streams. It has to do with how easy it is to get American consumers to
subscribe to TV distribution services, vs. people from some other
countries.

Again past tense. Has nothing to do with what would have happened if a
proper modulation had been introduced in 2000. It is not easy to
subscribe to cable and satellite. It cost a lot of money. A high
percentage of Americans will gladly drop cable or satellite if a decent
alternative surfaces.

A trend in 8 track tapes swept the US many years ago. Another wiped
8-track out in record time. A major trend over decades called records
looked to most people like it would last forever. Its gone. Cable and
satellite were not around a few years ago. My prediction, their days are
numbered at least in any recognizable way.


wait for the auctions of 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 here in the US next
spring.

I'm waiting with baited breath, not just for the auctions, but also to
see what use is made of this spectrum. I'll bet you a very hefty sum
that if someone uses those channels simply to offer a COFDM version of
OTA TV, they will get nowhere at all.

I would agree but why would they do that? They may offer a respectable
copy of cable and OTA but more likely a far better version than either
at a lower price.

I can see a ubiquitous reception offering that works in your living room
or car that delivers to a storage device 24/7 and offers ala carte from
that device of both free, subscription and PPV content that includes all
of the most popular content.

I can't even imaging a way for cable or satellite to compete with that.

No the only thing that can compete is the Internet where you can
download and store to take with you automatically all the same content
or watch it in the living room. If and when there is a ubiquitous mobile
Internet it will be able to compete and possibly eliminate OTA
broadcasting, even my concept, but no offering using 8-VSB will ever do
that.

In either scenario cable and satellite become very peripheral. I don't
know what they do. Maybe deliver content to airplanes, satellite, but
cable NADA. FIOS becomes basically Internet, cable could do OK there but
not anything like the cable we know today.

The end game IMO is wireless broadband and broadcast. There is nothing
else IMO. No cell phones, no cable, no satellite including Sirius or XM
merger or not.

You have multi Gbps wireless networks coming just around the corner.
They will cost peanuts to deploy. PEANUTS like in very few dollars. That
is the only competition for broadcasting using a decent modulation.

Bob Miller


Bert

"Bob Miller" wrote:

Albert Manfredi wrote:
Clearly not. The reason being that the further you get from the
transmitter, the weaker any reflections will be, to the point that
they reach below the sensitivity limit of the receiver. For example,
if the main path has been attenuated to -70 dBm, let's say, many of
those early receivers were unable to detect anything much weaker than
that. So a reflection of -75 dBm signal strength was non-existent, as
far as those receivers were concerned. Closer in, such a -5 dB echo
might have been far more problematic, depending how delayed or
advanced it was.

I believe that the primary signal decays at the same rate with
distance as any reflected signal so their relationship should remain
very similar. The main reason that you have less multipath in the far
field is that there are less tall buildings, low flying aircraft and
traffic of all sorts. And you can blame problems on distance instead
of multipath so multipath is misdiagnosed more.

I gave you a simple example, to illustrate why it is that multipath
problems are alleviated as you get far from the transmitter. And I did
that because you had said that multipath problems exist throughout the
reception range just as they do close in to the transmitter.

Even in your example, where the reflection continues to travel parallel
to the main signal (an unlikely scenario), the same holds true. That
reflection will begin, most likely, at a lower signal level than the
main signal, and it will therefore decay to oblivion sooner than the
main signal.

In fact, though, even early receivers were capable of successful demod
with few ghosts, but became overwhelmed with multiple ghosts. But
multiple ghosts are not going to all be loud, nor will they travel in
the same direction as the main signal. So again, the further you get
from the transmitter, the less impact they will have. Since the tests
bore this out, I'm not sure why it's even in doubt.

Has everything to do with modulation. A decent modulation would have
drastically turned the cable vs. OTA situation around.

That's wishful thinking. The extra spectrum available to cable is not
something you can ignore, with or without DTT, and the fact that cable
offers a two-way interface for broadband, VOD, and other such services
can't be ignored either.

I have great hopes for a viable FOTA TV system to continue in the US.
Gratuitous and obsolete complaints about ATSC will certainly not help
its survival.

Bert

Albert Manfredi wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote:

Albert Manfredi wrote:
Clearly not. The reason being that the further you get from the
transmitter, the weaker any reflections will be, to the point that
they reach below the sensitivity limit of the receiver. For example,
if the main path has been attenuated to -70 dBm, let's say, many of
those early receivers were unable to detect anything much weaker than
that. So a reflection of -75 dBm signal strength was non-existent, as
far as those receivers were concerned. Closer in, such a -5 dB echo
might have been far more problematic, depending how delayed or
advanced it was.

I believe that the primary signal decays at the same rate with
distance as any reflected signal so their relationship should remain
very similar. The main reason that you have less multipath in the far
field is that there are less tall buildings, low flying aircraft and
traffic of all sorts. And you can blame problems on distance instead
of multipath so multipath is misdiagnosed more.

I gave you a simple example, to illustrate why it is that multipath
problems are alleviated as you get far from the transmitter. And I did
that because you had said that multipath problems exist throughout the
reception range just as they do close in to the transmitter.

Even in your example, where the reflection continues to travel parallel
to the main signal (an unlikely scenario), the same holds true. That
reflection will begin, most likely, at a lower signal level than the
main signal, and it will therefore decay to oblivion sooner than the
main signal.

In fact, though, even early receivers were capable of successful demod
with few ghosts, but became overwhelmed with multiple ghosts. But
multiple ghosts are not going to all be loud, nor will they travel in
the same direction as the main signal. So again, the further you get
from the transmitter, the less impact they will have. Since the tests
bore this out, I'm not sure why it's even in doubt.

Has everything to do with modulation. A decent modulation would have
drastically turned the cable vs. OTA situation around.

That's wishful thinking. The extra spectrum available to cable is not
something you can ignore, with or without DTT, and the fact that cable
offers a two-way interface for broadband, VOD, and other such services
can't be ignored either.

I have great hopes for a viable FOTA TV system to continue in the US.
Gratuitous and obsolete complaints about ATSC will certainly not help
its survival.

Bert

Not only will I ignore it most people will. Cable is a dead end IMO.

And if you read my post you might have noticed that I did not ignore
cable. I said that OTA DTV used correctly with the proper modulation can
compete with cable because it can deliver to storage devices 24/7 lots
of programming, more than necessary to compete with the cable bandwidth
and also offer mobile and portable, something cable cannot. I did not
ignore the cable challenge but you did ignore my response.

Hoping that OTA will even survive with 8-VSB is "wishful thinking". All
the evidence for the last nine years say its so and yet you go on
dreaming. For example USDTV even died again while in the UK they have
free programming and pay programming OTA that not only are doing well
but are attracting new pay ventures.

Everything they are trying in the UK is working while everything we try
in the US is not. Not that we are trying very much here OTA.

Cable as in the physical copper cable will die. The cable companies may
morph to wireless but if they don't they go away. Wireless broadband is
two way, offers VOD and will have Gbps of bandwidth. It will facilitate
mobile as well.

Cable satellite and FIOS as ventures that rely on the physical cable,
fiber and satellites go away as the way we, at the household level,
connect to the world IMO.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:


Everything they are trying in the UK is working while everything we try
in the US is not. Not that we are trying very much here OTA.


Bob Miller

Maybe everything you are trying isn't working since you are such
a loser, but my ota 8vsb works great. Too bad for you, Bob.

Chip

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

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
Everything they are trying in the UK is working while everything we try
in the US is not. Not that we are trying very much here OTA.
Maybe everything you are trying isn't working since you are such
a loser, but my ota 8vsb works great. Too bad for you, Bob.

OTA 8-VSB works great for most other people too.

Psycho Bob's problem is that he chose the wrong technology for his
business, and as a consequence his business failed. He's never been able
to progress beyond the denial, grief, pleading, and anger stages into
acceptance; and as a result he re-lives his loss over and over again.

Had he been emotionally healthy, he would have gotten over it and be
deeply involved in a new business venture long ago. Instead, he chooses
to lash out, particularly against the HDTV community which he primarily
blames for his loss.

That's why he is a Psycho Bob, and why Viacel (his company) is and will
always be a synonym for "failure".

-- Mark --

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

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Frank wrote:
The notion that Australia has anything like "nationwide" TV coverage, much
less such coverage by SFNs, is absurd. As shown above, almost the entire
population of Australia can be covered with a very modest infrastructure.
The amount of infrastructure required to bring terrestrial TV coverage to
Australia's 20 million people would not be considered "very modest".

It's a matter of proportion. Australia's infrastructure is indeed "very
modest" compared to what is required to bring terrestrial TV coverage to
the 440 million people of North America. North America has about 20
persons per square km compared to Australia's 2.6.

What's more, even a small North American TV market area has more distinct
broadcasters than Australia's largest. You have to get into remote
villages in North America before you find as few OTA offerings as exist in
metropolitan Australia.

So yes, Australia's infrastructure *is* very modest by comparison.

-- Mark --

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

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Bob Miller wrote:
I do not accept "equal".

Fortunately, what Bob Miller accepts or does not accept as "equal" has no
bearing on public policy.

-- Mark --

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

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Bob Miller wrote:
A trend in 8 track tapes swept the US many years ago. Another wiped 8-track
out in record time. A major trend over decades called records looked to most
people like it would last forever. Its gone.

8-track's day in the sun was measured in a matter of a handful of years.

Phonographs, phonograph needles (even steel 78 needles!) and phonograph
records continue to be produced, although today it is a niche market.
While phonographs are certainly no longer mainstream and are highly
unlikely to ever be mainstream again, they have not vanished the way that
tape has.

Cable and satellite were not
around a few years ago.

Let's see...

Cable has been around at least since the 1960s. At that time, it was
called CATV (something like Community Antenna TV) and the idea was a
cooperative that built a big honking high quality OTA antenna to deliver
OTA to its members rather than everybody having to maintain a rooftop
antenna.

So, we're talking about a 40+ year run for cable.

Similarly, I remember satellite in the 1970s, although at that time it was
not officially offered to consumers. However, hobbyists had satellite
dishes and could watch HBO, etc. for free. By the 1980s, these guys had
attracted unwelcome attention and were called "pirates"; but a legitimate
satellite distribution service replaced it.

So, we're talking about a 30+ year run for satellite.

Hardly "a few years".

My prediction, their days are numbered at least in
any recognizable way.

I have $10,000 that says that your prediction is wrong. If you care to
take me up on this wager, it's the same terms as the last one (which you
declined): the funds for the wager to be supplied by both sides
immediately into an interest-bearing CD to be held in escrow, and
delivered to the winner upon the completion of the wager.

I can see a ubiquitous reception offering that works in your living room or
car that delivers to a storage device 24/7 and offers ala carte from that
device of both free, subscription and PPV content that includes all of the
most popular content.

Where does that exist anywhere in the world?

The closest is Japan's 1seg, and it is *FAR* from attaining all that.

I can't even imaging a way for cable or satellite to compete with that.

Ever hear of DVRs?

How, pray tell, will this "ubiquitous [OTA] reception offering" provide
Internet access, which is an ever-increasing portion of cable and
satellite service?

How, pray tell, will this "ubiquitous [OTA] reception offering" provide
the myriad selection of content available on satellite and cable?

No matter which modulation is chosen, there is only so much OTA bandwidth.
Cable and satellite both carry fare more.

The end game IMO is wireless broadband and broadcast. There is nothing else
IMO. No cell phones, no cable, no satellite including Sirius or XM merger or
not.

Speaking as someone who is actually working on wireless broadband
technology, you are full of ****. You vastly underestimate both costs and
feasibility, particularly in any sort of wide-area deployment.

Cable has a huge advantage over OTA in that it has its own dedicated
ether. It doesn't have to share bandwidth with external entities.

Satellite gets its bandwidth by using GHz frequencies, but at the cost of
requiring line-of-sight from transmitter to receiver and carefully aimed
dish antennas.

OTA has to suffer with a lot of limitations, including other users of the
ether. The reason why 802.11 is so severely power-limited is because it
uses frequencies owned by others on a "low-power" exemption.

Every new technology that allows squeezing more into OTA also benefits
cable and satellite; and it benefits those more.

-- Mark --

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

Bob Miller wrote:

I said that OTA DTV used correctly with the proper modulation can
compete with cable because it can deliver to storage devices 24/7 lots
of programming, more than necessary to compete with the cable bandwidth
and also offer mobile and portable, something cable cannot.

Much as I hate to continue on this thread, there are two points that
should be made, to dispell the misconceptions.

In order to compete against cable, as you propose, one of the first
things a DTT system would have to do is to increase spectral
efficiency as much as possible. Because, among other things, even
cable and DBS systems can and do make use of local storage devices. So
that alone will not be enough for DTT to gain any advantage. (Nor will
added spectral efficiency, but it's a start.)

As of now, ATSC is providing probably the highest spectral efficiency
of any deployed DTT. Primarily because that's the only choice it has,
until E-VSB and A-VSB are deployed. European DTT nets that use 16-QAM
now (Italy, Germany, UK) are having to figure out the next step.

And on this:

Everything they are trying in the UK is working while everything we try
in the US is not. Not that we are trying very much here OTA.

In the UK, and in Italy, legislators and the viewing public are
starting to scream for HDTV FOTA. This is a problem. In these
countries, as well as in France, any plans for HDTV as of now seem to
involve making this a separate, by-subscription-only service, which
will only be possible with frequencies recovered after analog shutoff.
The existing SDTV will continue to be simulcast.

In the US, HDTV FOTA has been available since 1998, always part of the
mix, never requiring simulcast. Even if the majority of HDTV viewers
now get HDTV over cable, HDTV during prime time is available on
essentially all ATSC stations.

So, as you can see, your comments are not quite on target. Everything
is a mixed bag, and what the UK, Italy, and France have that gives
their OTA TV an advantage is simply viewers who resist the cable lure.
(Not to mention whatever govt assistance they get for the OTA plant.)
The advantages of COFDM might have been significant at the start, but
not so important anymore. Since I can receive HDTV from 50 miles away
(80 Km)with a simple UHF loop antenna, I figure the RF problem is
essentially solved.

Bert