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

Doug McDonald wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:

Now you have inflated the 8-VSB power difference to 3 times DVB-T when
in fact, in the real world a COFDM based modulation like DVB-T will
beat ATSC at any distance and is far better within any coverage area
at any distance.

That's an absolute LIE and you know it.

There are only small parameter ranges where DVB-T beats ATSC at the same
bitrate and peak power level (and it's peak power that determines
power line costs.)


Doug McDonald

In all open test of the two modulations, 8-VSB and DVB-T, DVB-T won out
with the participants claiming no real world difference in the far field
and horrible differences in the rest. That is 8-VSB did not work well
within the coverage area.

In the one closed test, the US, the one fraudulent test, in seven far
field sites COFDM failed all and 8-VSB failed one.

Upon a retest by Sinclair it was found that using the same receiver but
with a proper filter, the same that was used on the 8-VSB receivers,
that COFDM was receivable in ALL seven locations INCLUDING the one where
8-VSB failed.

8-VSB has failed in every test it was in. It has been rejected by every
country that tested it. It continues to be rejected and has been
relegated to the garbage heap of history in most of the world.

It will suffer the same fate here. Just a matter of when. In the
meantime few will use it in the US. Few in Korea, few in Canada and few
in Honduras and Mexico. All countries that did not have open test of the
two modulations.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:

Now you have inflated the 8-VSB power difference to 3 times DVB-T when
in fact, in the real world a COFDM based modulation like DVB-T will beat
ATSC at any distance and is far better within any coverage area at any
distance.

That's an absolute LIE and you know it.

There are only small parameter ranges where DVB-T beats ATSC at the same
bitrate and peak power level (and it's peak power that determines
power line costs.)


Doug McDonald

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Bob Miller wrote:
Canada will limit OTA DTV to low power coverage of 44 city centers. So much
for the vaunted coverage of 8-VSB.
http://onlymagazine.ca/Media/788/the...e-21st-century

That isn't what that article says. It focuses on continuing CBC service
for current analog sets, and advocates the distribution of free or
subsidized digital tuners (and points to the US as a role model).

It then goes on to say:
We neglected to mention that the termination of
over-the-air transmissions have already begun in
areas where the population is less dense. A coalition
of citizens have already formed in Kamloops, BC. In
this slow transition to HD only 44 $B!F(Jurban$B!G(J centers
will be served by over-the-air.

The phrase "low power coverage" appears nowhere in the article.

Korea is crying in its Cass as DTV sales languish. They blame their choice of
modulation, the accursed US 8-VSB. Their broadcasters warned them by
stonewalling the use of 8-VSB for 4 years but they didn't listen.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/...9010711880.htm

That isn't what the web page says either.

That article notes the following digital TV adoption rates:
Britain 66%
USA 56.9%
Japan 36.6%
France 29.4%
Germany 20%
Korea 17.8%

Since Britain, France, and Germany do not have digital HDTV, that leaves
us with the following penetration rates for digitial HDTV:
USA 56.9%
Japan 36.6%
Korea 17.8%

The article demonstrates that the Korean government allowed the Korean
equivalents of Psycho Bob Miller to draw out the process so that consumers
(quite rationally) took a "wait and see" attitude until the dust settled:
"Makers of electronic goods struggle to sell digital TV
in Korea because the country launched the services too
late due to futile debates on the national standard."
- Prof. Lee Hyuck-jae

Furthermore, the article goes on to say that, unlike the US, the Korean
government failed to invoke a mandate and instead just allowed the
confusion and FUD to continue. Korea did exactly what Psycho Bob wanted
to have happen here.

The results in Korea were exactly what Psycho Bob (and Sinclair) wanted to
happen in the US -- uncertainty over which standard would be selected led
to people being unwilling to buy products that would become worthless if
the feuding standards turned the other way.

Fortunately, the US government did not make Korea's mistakes; it firmly
and decisively put to the debate, and firmly jerked Sinclair's chain.
Psycho Bob has now spent the past 7 years whimpering over it.

-- Mark --

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

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Doug McDonald wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
Now you have inflated the 8-VSB power difference to 3 times DVB-T when in
fact, in the real world a COFDM based modulation like DVB-T will beat ATSC
at any distance and is far better within any coverage area at any distance.
That's an absolute LIE and you know it.

Psycho Bob, being mentally ill, is incapable of lying. Rather, the false
statements he makes are attributable to his mental illness.

-- 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:


In the one closed test, the US, the one fraudulent test, in seven far
field sites COFDM failed all and 8-VSB failed one.

Your definition of "fraudulent" seems to be "doesn't match my prejudices."

8-VSB has failed in every test it was in. It has been rejected by every
country that tested it. It continues to be rejected and has been
relegated to the garbage heap of history in most of the world.


Odd that it works so well, huh? As I've reported many times, I'm
receiving 8-VSB very well. The local CBS station even added 2 additional
sub-channels to carry out-of-market NCAA tournament games, so counting
those, I currently receive 16 channels of OTA DTV without re-aiming my
antenna. I can re-aim my antenna and get DTV from several other markets.


It will suffer the same fate here. Just a matter of when. In the
meantime few will use it in the US. Few in Korea, few in Canada and few
in Honduras and Mexico. All countries that did not have open test of the
two modulations.

Bob Miller

"Bob Miller" wrote:

In all open test of the two modulations, 8-VSB and DVB-T, DVB-T won
out with the participants claiming no real world difference in the far
field and horrible differences in the rest. That is 8-VSB did not work
well within the coverage area.

STOOOOP, Bob, please! You know this is false. Even in the very early
tests, the ones with 1st generation barely functional ATSC receivers,
even the 1999 Sinlair tests, say the long range reception is not as you
say.

Read again FCC/OET 99-2, 30 September 1999. These are early tests, where
8-VSB receivers were quite poor, and yet they compared favorably in all
long range scenarios. And there was no issue with selectivity of the
COFDM receivers in these tests.

This is what Sinclair actually said said in this (ancient) report:

"Sinclair indicates that the purpose of its 'far field,' i.e., beyond 30
miles, testing was to try to determine if a meaningful difference in
performance could be observed due to the differences between 8-VSB and
COFDM in threshold carrier-to-noise (C/N) ratio needed for acquisition
of service. It states that while there is a 4 dB difference in the
theoretical C/N performance between of the two systems in favor of
8-VSB, the average daily calibration threshold difference between the
8-VSB and COFDM receivers was 3.28 dB and that in the field this
difference shrank to 2 dB. Sinclair suggests that this may be due to the
effect of real world impairments that add to the theoretical "gaussian"
channel values.

"In its summary comments and conclusions, Sinclair states that the need
for indoor reception was ignored during the design phase of 8-VSB and
that portability and mobility was not given any level of priority. It
argues that these factors should not be overlooked today. Further, it
states that the results of the Baltimore tests demonstrate that the
present generation of 8-VSB receivers being offered to the public fall
far short of the performance needed to make DTV a success as an
over-the-air service. Sinclair argues that the broadcast community
should demand better performance from 8-VSB receivers or look elsewhere
for a DTV transmission system."

And much better performance *is* now available, in all conditions that
were previously poor for 8-VSB. And there are other tests described in
that same OET report that show much more mixed bag of results than you
continue to describe.

Gratuitous complaints serve no useful purpose now, other than to
continue to confuse the clueless.

Bert

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:59:03 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

Now you have inflated the 8-VSB power difference to 3 times DVB-T when
in fact, in the real world a COFDM based modulation like DVB-T will beat
ATSC at any distance and is far better within any coverage area at any
distance.

That's an absolute LIE and you know it.

There are only small parameter ranges where DVB-T beats ATSC at the same
bitrate and peak power level (and it's peak power that determines
power line costs.)

Are you saying that the transmitters are operated in class-A, when you
say that the peak power determines the power line cost ? When using
class-AB push-pull the situation is different.

Of course, the high peak-to-average ratio would require a very high
voltage and/or current handling capacity of the output devices, put
the thermal design and power supply requirement would be closer to the
requirements for average power.

Paul

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:


In the one closed test, the US, the one fraudulent test, in seven far
field sites COFDM failed all and 8-VSB failed one.

Your definition of "fraudulent" seems to be "doesn't match my prejudices."

No fraudulent is when you go to the trouble of finding a small company
in the UK to sell you a transmitter monitor and use this transmitter
monitor as a receiver even when the company you bought it from tells you
in writing that to make this unit a receiver you have to do x and y.
You then deny that this conversation took place even though it was IN
WRITING and plead ignorance of a basic engineering principles involved.
You don't do x or y and deny seeing the written document admonishing you
as to what you were supposed to do. You then admit to the foulup and
blame the company. Essentially admitting that the test were totally
false at a minimum.

Either those involved were illiterate of, ignorant of the basics of
digital broadcasting and lazy to the point of somnolence or they were
conscious and consciously committing fraud. I give them the benefit of
the doubt and call it fraud.

Then while testing "anomalies" came up during testing, because they were
using a transmitter monitor with no front end filtering, they didn't
look into the problem. Didn't look for another receiver. Didn't do
anything. Kept it a secret.

In fact they knew exactly what they were doing.

At the same time you tell those companies and individuals who offer
other COFDM real receivers from a number of companies that you don't
need any help with COFDM receivers because you have all you need.

ONE COFDM receiver that you have purposely engineered to fail miserably.

ONE TRANSMITTER MONITOR for COFDM while working with more 8-VSB
receivers and admitting the latest 8-VSB receivers in during the testing
trying to find one that would work.

The fox was in the henhouse and they didn't even bother to hide the BS
at the end. Denied the second half of scheduled testing was needed and
canceled it because they knew that their dirty little secrets would be
out and they had to get this done with an FCC they knew before it left
office.

This fraud was rammed thru and abetted by Congressman like Dingell who
was proud of the intimidation he did at the Department of Defense and in
intimidating broadcasters with dire threats against there spectrum.

It was a calculated blatant fraud.

Bob Miller


8-VSB has failed in every test it was in. It has been rejected by
every country that tested it. It continues to be rejected and has been
relegated to the garbage heap of history in most of the world.


Odd that it works so well, huh? As I've reported many times, I'm
receiving 8-VSB very well. The local CBS station even added 2 additional
sub-channels to carry out-of-market NCAA tournament games, so counting
those, I currently receive 16 channels of OTA DTV without re-aiming my
antenna. I can re-aim my antenna and get DTV from several other markets.


It will suffer the same fate here. Just a matter of when. In the
meantime few will use it in the US. Few in Korea, few in Canada and
few in Honduras and Mexico. All countries that did not have open test
of the two modulations.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:

It was a calculated blatant fraud.

Bob Miller

What's that, Bob? Your constant postings here?

Chip

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

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
...
"Paul Keinanen" wrote:

While a large percentage of the population of Canada live close to the
US border and thus might be able to receive broadcasts from the US
side of the border and thus the viewers could use the same STB for
local and foreign broadcast, what other benefits would there be for
using 8VSB ?

That's a pretty big benefit.

snip

I live in San Diego, exactly 124 miles distant from Mount Wilson (N of
Pasadena), from which all the LA TV stations transmit. I *usually* get
plenty of LA OTA DTV with a modest roof antenna. The strongest station is
using 1000 KW ERP, but the ones with less power than that still come in.

Before DTV, I got mostly snowy pictures with the same antennas on LA analog
UHF stations -- so much so that I rarely bothered to watch them. and most
of them were multi-megawatt ERP, too.

This is a new era in television. I have an old STB and I imagine the new 5G
boxes are just marvelous. Welcome OTA DTV and if 8VSB is the way, then
welcome 8VSB, too!