The NYT Says the Transition News Isn't Good

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:34:57 -0800, UCLAN wrote:

The Internet package includes basic cable at no extra cost.

If you price for the Internet package is the same with or without the
basic cable, then basic cable is indeed free.

And I got a free car by buying a very expensive key.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

RickMerrill wrote:

RickMerrill wrote:



Is SFN (single freq network) really relevant now that 8VSB yields
several subchannels for each station?

Does OTA ATSC use program MPEG or transport MPEG?

SFN has nothing to do with sub channels. With SFN a broadcaster can put
multiple transmitters on the same frequency and the receiver will select
the strongest signal for receptionists. This requires the broadcast
station to lock the multiple transmitters together so the receiver knows
it is the same material. This has been tried in New York City to fill in
where signals are weak. The test has been a success and ends up being
transparent to end users.

ATSC uses MPEG2 transport streams, program streams are used for DVDs.

Regards,

Bill Cohn - N9MHT

Howard Brazee wrote:

The Internet package includes basic cable at no extra cost.

If you price for the Internet package is the same with or without the
basic cable, then basic cable is indeed free.

And I got a free car by buying a very expensive key.

Oh really? Was the key previously sold at the same price without the car?

That's the point. If the Internet package is $39/month, and they add basic
cable to the package for the same $39/month, then the added basic cable is
indeed free. [Or they lowered the price of the Internet package to...say...
$29/month and are charging $10/month for the basic cable.]

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
m...
UCLAN wrote:
robmx wrote:

Nice back-track. *Now* what's your point? *My* point is that getting
rid
of their OTA audience is hardly a positive move as far as their
retransmission
consent demands go.

Very confused by your "point". Moving OTA viewers to cable where they
are already getting paid per subscriber is a "positive move" in my
book. That is the future for any successful broadcaster as far as I
can tell their plans.

You're easily confused. By using the horrible (according to you) 8VSB
modulation which nobody (according to you) can receive, the stations
have eliminated a free alternative to cable for many viewers, and in
doing so eliminated any incentive cable had to pay them for their
signal.
Cable can now say "If you want ANYBODY to see your programming - and
your
advertisements - we'll carry them, but not pay for them." Do I need to
draw
you a picture? Logic impaired?

Your reputation is well earned. You're a loon.


Let me see if I can draw you a picture. The broadcaster delivers his
free content via 8-VSB in glorious SD and MPEG2. At the same time he
delivers the same content via cable for a subscriber fee in HD and
threatens to deliver or delivers the same content in HD via MPEG4 and
M/H for a subscriber fee.

Analog reception works the exact same way, except for the modulation being
used for analog, and that there is no MPEG-type codec being used at the
receiving end of an analog tuner.

That is, I have a choice of a watchable analog picture but it may have
constant snow or ghosts, or I could subscribe to analog cable and get a
better picture than I can get over the air. I also do not receive all
possible analog OTA channels. So for those channels that I cannot even
receive OTA with analog reception, I have the choice of not viewing those
channels, or subscribing to a basic cable package that includes all the
basic networks. In all cases, if I subscribe to analog cable, then I can
view all of those channels without any snow or ghosts. Consider that the
"high definition" of analog, if you will.

Now, that analog reception choice becomes moot after the DTV transition
date, but then I still have the choice of OTA DTV or subscribing to digital
cable. (Yeah, I know, I can subscribe to digital cable even now, but I'm
taking that option out of this discussion to keep the discussion a bit more
simple.) Currently, the few channels I receive with OTA DTV are more than
good enough, since I don't spend the majority of each day watching TV
anyway.

So the real problem with 8VSB is--as has been mentioned in many previous
discussions--the dynamic multipath issues that result in audio dropouts,
macroblock picture artifacts, frame dropping, picture smearing, picture
freeze, and the eventual black screen with a No Signal indicator.

Fixing the dynamic multipath issues effectively fixes 8VSB so that it is
more than good enough for OTA reception, with a picture and sound that is,
in many ways, superior to even a standard defintion picture over analog
cable just using a DTV converter box. (Some converter boxes do have audio
bugs, but that is a converter box issue rather than an actual OTA DTV
issue.) Those with HD TV sets are also more than capable of viewing an even
better picture, provided that they are also viewing high definition content
for the best possible picture.

The customer now has a choice. He can receive his CBS ala carte in HD
OTA mobile or fixed for a fee or free in SD via 8-VSB.

But the current DTV situation is that if the customer has an HD TV set with
an ATSC tuner that receives OTA DTV (using 8-VSB) and is able to receive the
CBS DTV signal, the customer can receive CBS in HD for free without the need
for a cable subscription because CBS is apparently broadcasting in HD even
before the DTV transition date.

The MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 codec argument is an entirely different discussion,
involving picture quality based on bitrates and framerates in part, but also
consider if MPEG2 was more than good enough for DVD movies, then it is
probably going to be good enough for most mainstream OTA DTV TV viewers that
aren't necessarily interested in the technical details such as codec,
framerate, or bitrate (among any other technical details).

Further discussion is welcome.

In article RickMerrill writes:
Alan wrote:
Indeed. And while the weak analog signal gives a fuzzy picture, that same
level in digital still can produce perfect pictures and sound. Once the
signal gets very weak then it will get into breakup. I get excellent results
from a digital channel with less than half the power of the analog transmitter
at the same location, and the analog signal is too weak to watch -- just barely
visible. They are on channels 50 and 54, so frequency is similar.

Yes, when digital goes, it doesn't have a lot of loss from perfect to pretty
bad, but the news article writer didn't understand that digital will still be
perfect when analog has become really bad.

Alan

YMMV: in remote/rural areas the digital signal may be so poor that while
a 20% signal may look great, below that you may get pixelation at random
and loss of sound which is way, way worse than listening to or watching
a poor analog.

My point is that the poor analog, on the same channel, with the same power
level, will probably not be there at all. People are frequently comparing
full power VHF stations with UHF digital stations at a lot lower power.

In comparing KTEH analog (ch 54, 661 kW) and KTEH-DT digital (ch 50, 290 kW),
we get good reception from the digital channel, but the more powerful analog
channel is pretty much unwatchable by any standard.

With the same power and similar channel assignment, digital goes a lot
farther than the low power UHF that some folks are working with.

Is it possible that after the transition TV stations may increase the
power of their digital transmission?

Some of them are running reduced power, so we have to expect them to
eventually bring it up to their full power. Others will move back to
VHF channels, or lower in UHF, which could also help their performance.

Alan

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message


Let me see if I can draw you a picture. The broadcaster delivers his
free content via 8-VSB in glorious SD and MPEG2. At the same time he
delivers the same content via cable for a subscriber fee in HD and
threatens to deliver or delivers the same content in HD via MPEG4 and
M/H for a subscriber fee.

Analog reception works the exact same way, except for the modulation being
used for analog, and that there is no MPEG-type codec being used at the
receiving end of an analog tuner.

That is, I have a choice of a watchable analog picture but it may have
constant snow or ghosts, or I could subscribe to analog cable and get a
better picture than I can get over the air. I also do not receive all
possible analog OTA channels. So for those channels that I cannot even
receive OTA with analog reception, I have the choice of not viewing those
channels, or subscribing to a basic cable package that includes all the
basic networks. In all cases, if I subscribe to analog cable, then I can
view all of those channels without any snow or ghosts. Consider that the
"high definition" of analog, if you will.

Now, that analog reception choice becomes moot after the DTV transition
date, but then I still have the choice of OTA DTV or subscribing to digital
cable. (Yeah, I know, I can subscribe to digital cable even now, but I'm
taking that option out of this discussion to keep the discussion a bit more
simple.) Currently, the few channels I receive with OTA DTV are more than
good enough, since I don't spend the majority of each day watching TV
anyway.

So the real problem with 8VSB is--as has been mentioned in many previous
discussions--the dynamic multipath issues that result in audio dropouts,
macroblock picture artifacts, frame dropping, picture smearing, picture
freeze, and the eventual black screen with a No Signal indicator.

Fixing the dynamic multipath issues effectively fixes 8VSB so that it is
more than good enough for OTA reception, with a picture and sound that is,
in many ways, superior to even a standard defintion picture over analog
cable just using a DTV converter box. (Some converter boxes do have audio
bugs, but that is a converter box issue rather than an actual OTA DTV
issue.) Those with HD TV sets are also more than capable of viewing an even
better picture, provided that they are also viewing high definition content
for the best possible picture.

The customer now has a choice. He can receive his CBS ala carte in HD
OTA mobile or fixed for a fee or free in SD via 8-VSB.

But the current DTV situation is that if the customer has an HD TV set with
an ATSC tuner that receives OTA DTV (using 8-VSB) and is able to receive the
CBS DTV signal, the customer can receive CBS in HD for free without the need
for a cable subscription because CBS is apparently broadcasting in HD even
before the DTV transition date.

You make it sound as if the "transitional date" was the date of
transition. NOT SO! The transition has been an ongoing process, was
supposed to be anyway, since 1998. It was suggested back then that the
transition would be so far DONE, OVER, FINISHED that by 2006 we could
turn off all analog transmitters. That was the LAW, that was the plan
until it DIDN"T WORK. No one was transitioning, no one was buying
receivers, broadcasters were not advertising, retailers were not
retailing so they DELAYED it three years till 2009, set up a MANDATE to
force the inclusion of receivers into all TV sets and decided to
subsidize converter boxes for the truly last minute analog holdouts.

Most other countries with decent modulations have seen a smooth and ever
more successful transition starting from the their various dates of
inception. Most other countries have seen a pattern where early adopters
told their family and friends about the benefits of OTA DTV and helped
propel the FREE unsubsidized sale of receivers and integrated DTV sets
to ever higher numbers quarter after quarter. Early adopters had few
problems and found that DTV worked out of the box with simple antennas.

In the US the opposite happened. The few early adopters told their
friends and family how hard OTA DTV was and how smart they were at
getting it to work. They bought each new "improved" receiver as it was
introduced and built 50' rotorized antennas and bragged about it to
whoever would listen. Most average Joe's were turned off in the US.

Most other countries started their transitions far after we did but are
far ahead of us today.

In these countries the END of the transition will be when a very high
percentage of homes have working OTA DTV receivers that are being used
not DTV sets that have MANDATED OTA receivers that they are not even
aware of.

The UK started in 2004 and has 72% of all homes with at least one OTA
DTV receiver.

France started in 2005, has only recently achieved coverage of 88% yet
already has 42% of homes with OTA DTV. The US has virtually had 100%
coverage for many years and offers the super added incentive of FREE HD
and what percentage of US homes are using OTA DTV today? Would anyone
dare say 5%???

"Digital penetration reaches 56%
According to recent research by the NPA Conseil on behalf of TDF, 56% of
French homes now watch digital TV via DTT, DTH, IPTV or cable.
DTT is the most popular mode with 42% watching terrestrially, most
penetration being in the eastern part of the country.
Many people still watch some analogue TV with 45.9% of the population
having at least one analogue TV set while 28.7% still watch analogue TV
on the primary set.
The research also showed that 23.2% of all French people now have an HD
Ready or Full HD screen in their homes.
Source: Broadband TV News
Item added: 11th August 2008"
http://www.dvb.org/about_dvb/dvb_worldwide/france/

Australia started in 2001 with little coverage. They have 42% of homes
relying on OTA DTV today.

ACMA publish latest report on free-to-air TV
The Australian Communications and Media Authority has just published a
new report on the adoption of Digital Television in Australia which puts
the proportion of those watching terrestrial digital television at 42%.
When the number of viewers subscribing to digital television services
are combined with those watching terrestrial digital television the
proportion watching free-to-view services increases to 52%.
The highest adoption rates for DTV where in Mildura (70.3%) and Tasmania
(64%) and the lowest in South Australia (37.1%) and Queensland (37.2%)
The full media bulletin can be accessed by clicking on the following
link: ACMA website
Item added: 15th April 2008

Germany is a different story. Their transition is over. No analog as of
November. Only 11.1% use OTA DTV. This is a heavily cabled country maybe
even more so that the US. Their OTA may not be competitive with cable
programming wise. I don't know. But what is interesting is that their
mobile DVB-H may be failing since one operator is handing in their license.

The interesting part though is that cell phones and other receive
devices are being sold to receive the standard DTV OTA, DVB-T. Even
though DVB-T is not set up for mobile in Germany it is being USED that
way and I expect it to grow very fast. When and how Germany now
transitions to DVB-T2 and OTA DTV becomes even more efficient and more
receivable mobile, because when they do this transition it will be all
about mobile, is the question.

And when they do the quantity and ease of reception ubiquitously will
make OTA in Germany a competitor to cable IMO.

And I am not saying that OTA DVB-T could not be a major mobile
ubiquitous competitor to cable today, it is just that they have set the
parameters and built the network for fixed reception so far.

BUT it works pretty well mobile and portable anyway so the logical
competitive forces will drive it to be used more mobile, to change the
modulation to DVB-T2, to change the parameters, to build out the network
more.

Till they have what I propose, a ubiquitous DTV OTA that can be received
anywhere at any speed and deliver lots of bits in many resolutions.


The MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 codec argument is an entirely different discussion,
involving picture quality based on bitrates and framerates in part, but also
consider if MPEG2 was more than good enough for DVD movies, then it is
probably going to be good enough for most mainstream OTA DTV TV viewers that
aren't necessarily interested in the technical details such as codec,
framerate, or bitrate (among any other technical details).

Further discussion is welcome.

MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 argument is not so much about quality as quantity. The
more quantity the higher the value of the spectrum to everyone. The more
the OTA spectrum can compete with cable for instance. The more a
broadcaster can deliver.

OTA viewers are NOT interested in ANY of the technical aspects. They are
interested in getting such things as HD and with MPEG2 there is some
problem with quality especially with 1080i. EVEN using the entire
channel, all the bits possible and with mobile M/H lots and lots of
those bits are going to be robbed from 1080i or even 720P, not so good.

If you used a better modulation and MPEG4 you do not have to SEGMENT off
a whole lot of bits for mobile. You can use MPEG4 with ALL the bits and
you can deliver more content with FEWER bits, half as many, later 1/3 or
even 1/4th as many as MPEG4 matures.

Today with 8-VSB and M/H you have your channel SEGMENTED into two
distinct parts. One for 8-VSB/MPEG2 receivable with all current and
legacy receivers and one receivable by NEW M/H/MPEG4 receivers in cell
phones for instance or laptops.

Proponents of this garbage can falsely claim that this system is
backward compatible with current receivers since current receivers could
receive an M/H mobile broadcast which is true.

BUT ONLY IF THE BROADCAST IS IN MPEG2. And NO broadcaster is going to
use M/H with MPEG2. And if they did they would also have to use A LOT
MORE BITS with MPEG2 and M/H to do even one mobile program and that
would IMPERIL HD on the other part even more.

So the proponents of M/H are lieing to us while telling the literal
truth. They have to tell the literal truth as a smoke screen because
many would be outraged if they realized that the SACROSANCT RULE of the
digital transition that NO change can happen that makes any legacy
receiver obsolete can happen.

That is the DAM against any possible consideration of changing
modulations or codecs.

The LAW against making any legacy receiver obsolete.

But what they are doing is doing just that.

Legacy receivers and all current receivers including the converter boxes
will not be able to receive M/H/MPEG4.

Legacy receivers and all current receivers including the converter boxes
will not be able to take advantage of the better receive capabilities of
M/H even if broadcasters were to use MPEG2 with M/H instead of MPEG4.

It is all a lie.

M/H breaks the rule that says all legacy receivers must work with what
broadcasters are broadcasting. As broadcasters use more and more of
their channel for mobile they will break this rule just that much more.

The US might as well consider changing modulation and codec now. The
sooner the better. And may the best modulation and codec win whether it
is an advanced form of 8-VSB or an advanced form of the Chinese standard
DMBT.

Bob Miller

robmx wrote:

[...231 lines of garbage snipped]

You're pathetic.

robmx wrote:
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message




The LAW against making any legacy receiver obsolete.



Bob Miller




You still don't understand simple economics. You explain to all the
people who purchased legacy receivers that we will change the system
every time something new comes around. It took ten years to get here
from a a system that is 70 years old. You want to change it to MPEG4
over might. The technology was not available ten years ago that is why
we have MPEG2.

Stop comparing our market with Europe that has not had the cable
penetration we have had in the US.

The life expectancy of a TV set in the US is about 15 years.



Regards,

Bill Cohn

Bill Cohn wrote:
robmx wrote:
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message




The LAW against making any legacy receiver obsolete.



Bob Miller




You still don't understand simple economics. You explain to all the
people who purchased legacy receivers that we will change the system
every time something new comes around. It took ten years to get here
from a a system that is 70 years old. You want to change it to MPEG4
over might. The technology was not available ten years ago that is why
we have MPEG2.

Very few people have actually consciously purchased an 8-VSB receiver.
That is most who have one don't even know it. Of those who know they
have one very few have tried to use it or are using it.

After 10 years of trying where is "here"? Nowhere!

There was good advanced codec technology available in 2000 when the FCC
reviewed the US modulation and considered changing it. We proposed two
things. Allowing another modulation and codec to be used and making the
specifications for receivers to include an upgrade path for more
advanced codecs. If this had been done all receivers that have been sold
could be, today, upgraded to MPEG4 or other codecs. They would have cost
bit more but would allow for TRUE HD even 1080P with MPEG4 now.

Stop comparing our market with Europe that has not had the cable
penetration we have had in the US.

Germany has a high cable penetration at 52% and growing and satellite of
42% or a total of 94.5% while the US is at 61.3% cable and falling and
28.4% satellite for a total of 89.8%. Why deny US viewers a decent OTA
DTV modulation because Europe is slightly different than the US?

In the UK 88.5% of homes have digital TV with 53% choosing satellite.

I think it is valid to compare. To ask viewers in the US if they would
like to have what consumers in countries like France and the UK have
today. Especially with this economy maybe some would like to drop cable
for something like Freeview with a whole bunch of free DTV channels plus
digital radio all free. And both France and the UK will have OTA HD,
have HD via satellite.

The life expectancy of a TV set in the US is about 15 years.

No need to replace a DTV just because it has an 8-VSB receiver. You can
add a small inexpensive receiver to any TV for other modulations and codecs.

Bob Miller


Regards,

Bill Cohn

"Jer" wrote in message
netamerica...


snip


More....

Some stations to reach fewer viewers with digital

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...roadcast_N.htm


Many stations will reach _more_ viewers than before but that's not the
headline. The mainstream media make their best money peddling doom and
gloom. Please note: War is a better story than Peace. Hearst proved that
over a century ago.

I'm not worried because I don't trust 'em. The earlier NY Times story was
much the same thing. If there's really a problem, I'll hear about it from
somebody in a lab.

Oh, yeah: "Women and minorities expected to be hit the hardest."

Cynically yours,
"Sal"