A Home cinema forum. HomeCinemaBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HomeCinemaBanter forum » Home cinema newsgroups » High definition TV
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Perfume on the PIG



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 2nd 04, 05:14 PM
Bob Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Perfume on the PIG

PhilJSmith67 on AVSForum post this while genuflecting before the 8-VSB
gods...

OTA DTV Progress

"There are several different criteria that make reception in the U.K.
and Europe much different, and generally more reliable for the mass
populous than here.

The U.K. uses far more transmitters, at generally lower power. The U.S.
has high-power transmitters spaced farther apart.

The U.K. has completely relinquished use of VHF. One UHF antenna in many
cases can bring in all your signals. Likewise, if you solve a reception
challenge of one U.K. station, there is a stronger chance that you've
solved them for the remainder of stations than here, where you might
have great VHF reception but horrible UHF, or vica-versa.

TV stations in the U.K. and Europe are mostly programmed on a regional
or national basis. If you can't get a good signal from one "Channel 4"
transmitter, turn the antenna toward another city's "Channel 4" since
they're usually identical from a programming perspective. That's just
not the case here, where for instance you might only have one NBC
affiliate in your reach. If by chance you have two or three of them,
chances are you'll only consider one of them "local" from a programming
perspective. You might also have ABC and Fox coming from one direction,
CBS coming from another, NBC and PBS coming from 45 miles beyond a hill,
and no WB or UPN at all. A similar situation rarely exists in the U.K.
or Europe.

I'm not going to delve into the pseudo-religious 8VSB-vs-COFDM argument
here. I have my doubts about 8VSB being all it's cracked up to be,
especially after witnessing how simply existing receivers can pluck
COFDM signals out of the air in the U.K. However, both systems *do* work.

Fortunately, for those of us in North America with 8VSB, the analogy
holds true that if you put enough perfume on the pig, it will eventually
smell good. Likewise, if we wrap this 8VSB specification with strong
enough RF reception technology and the absolute best algorithms possible
for cancelling multipath, we have a shot at getting a reliable picture
in most people's homes.

Hopefully, that will happen before the "Day After Analog.""

Comments on his post.

The UK has 80 transmit sites for DTV. This covers about 75% of the
country. The low power he mentions in the UK is on average ONE kW with
20 kWs the max. The US has over a thousand DTV transmitters on air.

If we compare analog the UK has 1100 transmitters on air while the US
has 1700 full power and around 5000 translators.

As he says the perfume on the 8-VSB pig is starting to show results.
Better receivers yes. Good enough for fixed maybe but still lacking for
mobile and portable. IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
and portable reception. However if 8-VSB receivers can do almost as well
as COFDM does for fixed receivers the success that COFDM is having in
the UK and Germany could happen here. The only thing standing in the way
is the price of receivers.

COFDM receivers have sold as low as $40 in the UK on sale with a normal
price of as little as $65 and for as little normally as $85 in Berlin.
When 8-VSB receivers can match those prices and the ease of fixed
reception that COFDM enjoys in Europe then we could have even more
success in the US.

While Phil Smith was impressed with the ease of reception in the UK from
personally experience he would be much more impressed about current
reception characteristics with 4th generation COFDM receivers that are
light years better than the UK version.

And when and if 8-VSB receivers are almost as good at receiving as COFDM
receivers in a fixed location that will not mitigate the waste of time
that has past since 2000. Remember that the biggest argument against
COFDM at the time was that it might delay the transition as much as a
year or two if allowed because of confusion in the marketplace. I think
that even if new 8-VSB are as good as they claim the time for them to
enter the market and the time it will take for their price to come down
will add at least 2 to 3 more years to the already 4 years that 8-VSB
has already delayed the digital transition since 2000.



  #2  
Old June 2nd 04, 06:10 PM
Gomer Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...
PhilJSmith67 on AVSForum post this while genuflecting before the 8-VSB
gods...

" IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile and portable
reception." --

Why? I still don't get the portability, mobility arguement? Take a look
around and see what is happening with mobility, the ubiquitous device is the
cell phone, Sony's exit of the PDA market is a clear indication that they
recognized the converged device will be the cell phone. -- GSM/3G networks
will handle my and most peoples mobility and portability needs and the build
of this infrastructure is happening today. Are Cingular , T-Mobile, etal
looking at CODFM?

The comparisons between the US and Europe are laughable -- by contrast the
US covers 9.6 million square km Vs. the Englands 130K square KM. Also given
the relunctance for many communities to even erect new cell phone towers you
expect them to start approving low power CODFM towers?

Also the CODFM receivers you speak of aren't HDTV ... I know its a
resolution, but it is the resolution that is driving consumers to buy LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisons. Tell that group of consumers that EDTV is good
enough now after they have experienced HDTV

I have lurked here long enough to know that you don't give a crap about
HDTV, just self promotion and advancement of your own company


  #3  
Old June 2nd 04, 06:25 PM
Michael J. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Miller wrote:

[a lot of garbage]


Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
  #4  
Old June 2nd 04, 06:40 PM
21C BBS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Within these hallowed halls, Bob Miller of added
the following to the collective conscience:
snip

No one needs to know how you get your wife ready for an evening out.


  #5  
Old June 2nd 04, 09:16 PM
Bob Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gomer Jones wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...

PhilJSmith67 on AVSForum post this while genuflecting before the 8-VSB
gods...


" IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile and portable
reception." --

Why? I still don't get the portability, mobility arguement? Take a look
around and see what is happening with mobility, the ubiquitous device is the
cell phone, Sony's exit of the PDA market is a clear indication that they
recognized the converged device will be the cell phone. -- GSM/3G networks
will handle my and most peoples mobility and portability needs and the build
of this infrastructure is happening today. Are Cingular , T-Mobile, etal
looking at CODFM?


Yes they are.

The broadcaster has to compete with cable, satellite and the Internet.
Broadband is going to expand to 100 Mbps and more in the future. Soon in
big cities. Any delivery service to FIXED receivers will have more and
more competition from more vendors with no public service
responsibilities via IP. They all have and the new ones will have more
bandwidth than you can even imagine IMO. Broadcasters only have 6 MHz
which can do about 20 Mbps. They have already lost the battle to cable
and satellite for 85% of viewers and are in the process of losing the
last 15% even with HDTV included.

The one thing that OTA broadcasting can do that these other services
cannot is mobile and portable. That is their strength and everyday more
devices are introduced made to order for mobile reception.

The cell companies do not want to use their precious bandwidth for TV.
They want a DTV receiver to piggyback on their cell phone using
broadcast tech to preserve their precious two way spectrum. In Europe
they are now about to start broadcasting with DVB-H (hand held) COFDM to
cell phones. It will happen in the US late this year or early next with
DVB-H also.

The comparisons between the US and Europe are laughable -- by contrast the
US covers 9.6 million square km Vs. the Englands 130K square KM. Also given
the relunctance for many communities to even erect new cell phone towers you
expect them to start approving low power CODFM towers?


Europe's land area is 9,938,000 sq km (that is more than the US at 9.6
km BTW) before you count most of Asian Russia. Yes Russia is doing
COFDM. Add 5 million sq. km for Asian Russia before you start laughing.
Most countries in Europe are broadcasting COFDM or soon will be. Some
are far ahead and some haven't started yet. France which has not started
yet may go for HDTV.

Towers are simply a NON issue in the US for what we propose with DVB-T
and what is about to happen with DVB-H. We do not have to have the
concentration for broadcasting that a cell phone company has to have. We
are broadcasting at much higher power levels. Cell phones have to have
cell towers close enough to receive the signal from your cell phone. We
do not absolutely have to have a tower in a particular location.

XMRadio had to place 1500 transmitters so far and many more to come. If
they had any problems I haven't heard of it.

Also the CODFM receivers you speak of aren't HDTV ... I know its a
resolution, but it is the resolution that is driving consumers to buy LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisons. Tell that group of consumers that EDTV is good
enough now after they have experienced HDTV


There are COFDM HDTV receivers that are "driving consumers to buy LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisions" and at a far higher rate than here in the
US. In Japan it was over a million integrated HDTV sets in just three
cities in just the last six months.

It may be the resolution that is driving them in Japan and the US but
that is not what I read. I read that most people that buy an HDTV set in
the US DON'T buy an OTA receiver with it. In fact when questioned they
say they bought them to watch DVDs at the wonderful 480i resolution.

The correct argument would be then that DVDs are driving people to buy
HDTV sets and those Plasma EDTV panels.

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108580-3.html

"DVD on an HDTV: Since most people don't buy HDTV tuners and converted
TV doesn't really leverage the full potential of a new high-def
television, you may wonder why people buy HDTVs today at all. Most of
them will probably tell you it's because of DVD. HDTVs can make DVD, a
very high-quality source, look spectacular. Progressive-scan DVD players
have their own internal processors that are generally superior to the
ones inside most digital sets. Mating a prog-scan DVD with an HDTV will
give you the best picture you can get outside of HDTV itself."

I have lurked here long enough to know that you don't give a crap about
HDTV, just self promotion and advancement of your own company

You must be very perceptive. I happen to have HDTV and an 8-VSB
receiver. I wish it worked well enough to watch. It would with COFDM.
That is pretty simple statement of my interest. I assume you think you
are pro HDTV. How many years will it take watching other countries use
their OTA spectrum to deliver to all their citizens HDTV that is easy to
receive, doesn't need expensive receivers and rotorized antennas and
which people are free to buy and do so without a mandate?

No one is buying OTA receivers in the US. Walmart had 19 big screen HDTV
MONITORS advertised on their website and only ONE OTA receiver at $568
that is also a satellite receiver. They also have ONE TOKEN integrated
HDTV set. There was one ad that I know of selling an OTA receiver in the
US last week.

Who are we kidding?

  #6  
Old June 2nd 04, 09:18 PM
Bob Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

[a lot of garbage]


Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?


That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.
  #7  
Old June 2nd 04, 11:54 PM
Jeff Shoaf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Miller wrote in news:KCqvc.20830$be.8426
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

[a lot of garbage]


Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?


That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.


And what does that have to do with HDTV?

This is an HDTV newsgroup, not a "Help Bob make his business work"
newsgroup...

You know, I'm all for free enterprise, but with your constant off-topic
spamming of this newsgroup, I'm about to decide against it - at least for
you!

  #8  
Old June 3rd 04, 12:18 AM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:18:50 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

[a lot of garbage]


Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?


That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.


Give it up Bob, you've lost.

After backstabbing the ATSC group with the Sinclair proposal, the FCC
blew you off and you can't get ver it.

It's not going to happen. Get over it. You lost. I hate people
who can't accept a loss and move on. Shows a serious mental defect
that requires treatment.

All tests show that 8VSB and COFDM basically perform the same
function. Just because you saw a business opportunity because a
different modulation would allow some mobile services wasn't enough to
convince anyone to go through the time, trouble, and expense of making
a change to benefit you. Why should HDTV implementation be put off
for years simply so you could have a chance to make some money.

And providing video advertising to buses, trains, and so forth. I
frankly don't see that as a viable business model anyway. With the
state of society today, a video receiver in a bus will be broken 90%
of time, because people will get fed up with seeing them and bash them
in. Sounds good on paper, until you look at the realites.

You know, the more you spout here, the less credible you get, perhaps
you should give it a break and move on.

A lot of you probably know this, but here's a link I found today that
really lays it out for those who aren't aware of what Bob Miller and
Sinclair attempted to do to. It's buried in the middle, but
interesting reading.

http://www.tvhandbook.com/news/history_dtv.htm

Probably useful for those who don't know the history.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #9  
Old June 3rd 04, 01:14 AM
Gomer Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...
Gomer Jones wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...

PhilJSmith67 on AVSForum post this while genuflecting before the 8-VSB
gods...


" IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile and portable
reception." --

Yes they are.

The broadcaster has to compete with cable, satellite and the Internet.
Broadband is going to expand to 100 Mbps and more in the future. Soon in
big cities.


You lost me here ... who is the broadcaster? Is Cingular, T-Mobile the one
you refer to? Or are you speaking of my local ABC, NBC etal affailiate? If
so how do they compete with Cable and Satellite?

Any delivery service to FIXED receivers will have more and
more competition from more vendors with no public service
responsibilities via IP. They all have and the new ones will have more
bandwidth than you can even imagine IMO. Broadcasters only have 6 MHz
which can do about 20 Mbps. They have already lost the battle to cable
and satellite for 85% of viewers and are in the process of losing the
last 15% even with HDTV included.


I don't follow here, are you saying that 85% of American TV viewers receive
their TV content via cable and/or sat? Does ABC really care how their show
gets to my TV? Don't they just want my eyeballs on their shows and
therefore their ads? If this is the case isn't OTA dead then?


The one thing that OTA broadcasting can do that these other services
cannot is mobile and portable. That is their strength and everyday more
devices are introduced made to order for mobile reception.


What devices?


The cell companies do not want to use their precious bandwidth for TV.
They want a DTV receiver to piggyback on their cell phone using
broadcast tech to preserve their precious two way spectrum. In Europe
they are now about to start broadcasting with DVB-H (hand held) COFDM to
cell phones. It will happen in the US late this year or early next with
DVB-H also.


Egads people want to watch tv on 1.5" low res screens. I don't see the
demand for this content. The beauty of the cell phone is that it is two-way
communications If I want mobile content I will listen to the radio.


Towers are simply a NON issue in the US for what we propose with DVB-T
and what is about to happen with DVB-H. We do not have to have the
concentration for broadcasting that a cell phone company has to have. We
are broadcasting at much higher power levels. Cell phones have to have
cell towers close enough to receive the signal from your cell phone. We
do not absolutely have to have a tower in a particular location.


Towers are an issue everywhere, I don't care if you need 1 or 100 towers
they are an issue in every community.

XMRadio had to place 1500 transmitters so far and many more to come. If
they had any problems I haven't heard of it.


Yeah but last time I checked they leased space at exsisting sites

Also the CODFM receivers you speak of aren't HDTV ... I know its a
resolution, but it is the resolution that is driving consumers to buy

LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisons. Tell that group of consumers that EDTV is

good
enough now after they have experienced HDTV


The reference was to sub $50 receivers, we know these aren't HDTV.


There are COFDM HDTV receivers that are "driving consumers to buy LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisions" and at a far higher rate than here in the
US. In Japan it was over a million integrated HDTV sets in just three
cities in just the last six months.

It may be the resolution that is driving them in Japan and the US but
that is not what I read. I read that most people that buy an HDTV set in
the US DON'T buy an OTA receiver with it. In fact when questioned they
say they bought them to watch DVDs at the wonderful 480i resolution.


I am not suprised that most DON'T BUY AN OTA receiver. Me, like most people,
get their TV via cable just ask our cable co for an HDTV-STB or are buying a
SatSTB for our HDTV needs.


The correct argument would be then that DVDs are driving people to buy
HDTV sets and those Plasma EDTV panels.

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108580-3.html

"DVD on an HDTV: Since most people don't buy HDTV tuners and converted
TV doesn't really leverage the full potential of a new high-def
television, you may wonder why people buy HDTVs today at all. Most of
them will probably tell you it's because of DVD.


CNET editorial opinion there are not studys quoted or cited to support this
....

HDTVs can make DVD, a
very high-quality source, look spectacular. Progressive-scan DVD players
have their own internal processors that are generally superior to the
ones inside most digital sets. Mating a prog-scan DVD with an HDTV will
give you the best picture you can get outside of HDTV itself."

I have lurked here long enough to know that you don't give a crap about
HDTV, just self promotion and advancement of your own company

You must be very perceptive. I happen to have HDTV and an 8-VSB
receiver. I wish it worked well enough to watch. It would with COFDM.
That is pretty simple statement of my interest. I assume you think you
are pro HDTV. How many years will it take watching other countries use
their OTA spectrum to deliver to all their citizens HDTV that is easy to
receive, doesn't need expensive receivers and rotorized antennas and
which people are free to buy and do so without a mandate?


Get cable? All kidding aside you own a company that promotes datacasting
services, your companies technology was based on COFDM -- you are ****ed
that 8-VSB was selected. You aren't here to promote HDTV you are here to
disparage 8-vsb and promote your own modulation scheme. Honestly you
think the American people are going to unplug their cable? How many
Americans are getting their TV OTA?


No one is buying OTA receivers in the US. Walmart had 19 big screen HDTV
MONITORS advertised on their website and only ONE OTA receiver at $568
that is also a satellite receiver. They also have ONE TOKEN integrated
HDTV set. There was one ad that I know of selling an OTA receiver in the
US last week.


How many HDTV boxes has SA or Motorolla or Pace or Panasonic shipped.
Include this your adoption statistics. Based upon the waiting list in my
area for available cable HDTV STBs there are a lot of people adopting HDTV.


Who are we kidding?


No one .. I know a lot people enjoying HDTV.



  #10  
Old June 3rd 04, 06:01 AM
Bob Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gomer Jones wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...

Gomer Jones wrote:


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


PhilJSmith67 on AVSForum post this while genuflecting before the 8-VSB
gods...


" IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile and portable
reception." --


Yes they are.

The broadcaster has to compete with cable, satellite and the Internet.
Broadband is going to expand to 100 Mbps and more in the future. Soon in
big cities.



You lost me here ... who is the broadcaster? Is Cingular, T-Mobile the one
you refer to? Or are you speaking of my local ABC, NBC etal affailiate? If
so how do they compete with Cable and Satellite?

The broadcaster owns spectrum which he is licensed to use to broadcast
over the air to customers who receive the signal via an antenna.
Broadcasters have lost 85% of those viewers to cable and satellite.
Using their political power they were able to get a must carry law
passed with a 5 to 4 vote in the Supreme Court.

Broadcasters are dependent on that law to survive. Content owners over
time will be more interested in bypassing broadcasters by going directly
to cable, satellite and the Internet to deliver their content. And new
broadcasters with spectrum purchased at auction and able to use a better
modulation and advanced compression will offer content providers a new
way of reaching thiner audience and a new audience composed of those who
have portable and mobile receivers.

You make a good point, how do broadcasters compete with cable and
satellite? I think they can if the new 8-VSB receivers are as good as I
hear they are. I say this because both in the UK and Berlin where free
DTV is wildly successful there is no mention of the mobile market. So
without mobile a broadcaster can compete with cable and satellite. In
Berlin cable and satellite is even more prevalent than in the US. Berlin
is at 95% cable and satellite and still a new broadcast free service is
going very strong and taking customers from cable in such numbers that
cable is complaining loudly.

If I were a broadcaster and could team up with other broadcasters in a
market and put our content together in a low cost subscription service I
would then withhold our content from cable and satellite and get back in
the broadcast business full time. That is if the new 8-VSB receivers are
as good as they say.

Any delivery service to FIXED receivers will have more and
more competition from more vendors with no public service
responsibilities via IP. They all have and the new ones will have more
bandwidth than you can even imagine IMO. Broadcasters only have 6 MHz
which can do about 20 Mbps. They have already lost the battle to cable
and satellite for 85% of viewers and are in the process of losing the
last 15% even with HDTV included.



I don't follow here, are you saying that 85% of American TV viewers receive
their TV content via cable and/or sat? Does ABC really care how their show
gets to my TV? Don't they just want my eyeballs on their shows and
therefore their ads? If this is the case isn't OTA dead then?

Again if the new 8-VSB receivers are as good as they say broadcasters
could do SFNs with them and on channel repeaters which means they can do
a good job of covering their coverage area why would they need cable?
Not only is OTA not dead it should if used right and has the right tools
make mincemeat out of cable and satellite.

The one thing that OTA broadcasting can do that these other services
cannot is mobile and portable. That is their strength and everyday more
devices are introduced made to order for mobile reception.



What devices?


Well now we are talking mobile and portable so forget the 8-VSB stuff
above. Now you need COFDM. What devices? Laptops, PDA's, desktop
computers, DVD players, cell phones, Pocket PCs, portable TV sets, in
car receivers, game machines, wearable computers with heads up displays
or video glasses (including HD), HD in vehicles like trains, your boat,
buses.



The cell companies do not want to use their precious bandwidth for TV.
They want a DTV receiver to piggyback on their cell phone using
broadcast tech to preserve their precious two way spectrum. In Europe
they are now about to start broadcasting with DVB-H (hand held) COFDM to
cell phones. It will happen in the US late this year or early next with
DVB-H also.



Egads people want to watch tv on 1.5" low res screens. I don't see the
demand for this content. The beauty of the cell phone is that it is two-way
communications If I want mobile content I will listen to the radio.


That is you and me both but it isn't everyone. Research suggest that
there will be 160 million cell phones capable of DTV reception by 2007.
Now if the screen gets a little bigger I want one.


Towers are simply a NON issue in the US for what we propose with DVB-T
and what is about to happen with DVB-H. We do not have to have the
concentration for broadcasting that a cell phone company has to have. We
are broadcasting at much higher power levels. Cell phones have to have
cell towers close enough to receive the signal from your cell phone. We
do not absolutely have to have a tower in a particular location.



Towers are an issue everywhere, I don't care if you need 1 or 100 towers
they are an issue in every community.


XMRadio had to place 1500 transmitters so far and many more to come. If
they had any problems I haven't heard of it.



Yeah but last time I checked they leased space at exsisting sites


So its not a problem. We have leased space at existing sites no problem.


Also the CODFM receivers you speak of aren't HDTV ... I know its a
resolution, but it is the resolution that is driving consumers to buy LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisons. Tell that group of consumers that EDTV is good
enough now after they have experienced HDTV


The reference was to sub $50 receivers, we know these aren't HDTV.


Ken Ferree the head of the FCC Media department testified today before
the House Commerce Committee that HDTV digital to analog converters
(8-VSB receivers) would cost $50 by 2007. And we know that 8-VSB with
its silicon acreage and higher IP royalties cost more than COFDM so I
guess COFDM HDTV receivers will cost $25 in 2007.


There are COFDM HDTV receivers that are "driving consumers to buy LCD,
Plasma and DLP televisions" and at a far higher rate than here in the
US. In Japan it was over a million integrated HDTV sets in just three
cities in just the last six months.

It may be the resolution that is driving them in Japan and the US but
that is not what I read. I read that most people that buy an HDTV set in
the US DON'T buy an OTA receiver with it. In fact when questioned they
say they bought them to watch DVDs at the wonderful 480i resolution.



I am not suprised that most DON'T BUY AN OTA receiver. Me, like most people,
get their TV via cable just ask our cable co for an HDTV-STB or are buying a
SatSTB for our HDTV needs.



The correct argument would be then that DVDs are driving people to buy
HDTV sets and those Plasma EDTV panels.

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108580-3.html

"DVD on an HDTV: Since most people don't buy HDTV tuners and converted
TV doesn't really leverage the full potential of a new high-def
television, you may wonder why people buy HDTVs today at all. Most of
them will probably tell you it's because of DVD.



CNET editorial opinion there are not studys quoted or cited to support this
...


It has been reported many times though I could not find the articles


HDTVs can make DVD, a
very high-quality source, look spectacular. Progressive-scan DVD players
have their own internal processors that are generally superior to the
ones inside most digital sets. Mating a prog-scan DVD with an HDTV will
give you the best picture you can get outside of HDTV itself."

I have lurked here long enough to know that you don't give a crap about
HDTV, just self promotion and advancement of your own company


You must be very perceptive. I happen to have HDTV and an 8-VSB
receiver. I wish it worked well enough to watch. It would with COFDM.
That is pretty simple statement of my interest. I assume you think you
are pro HDTV. How many years will it take watching other countries use
their OTA spectrum to deliver to all their citizens HDTV that is easy to
receive, doesn't need expensive receivers and rotorized antennas and
which people are free to buy and do so without a mandate?



Get cable? All kidding aside you own a company that promotes datacasting
services, your companies technology was based on COFDM -- you are ****ed
that 8-VSB was selected. You aren't here to promote HDTV you are here to
disparage 8-vsb and promote your own modulation scheme. Honestly you
think the American people are going to unplug their cable? How many
Americans are getting their TV OTA?

Our companies technology IS based on COFDM. I have said it one hundred
time I will say it again. Our business plan only exist because of 8-VSB.
If all broadcasters were allowed to use COFDM we could not compete. I
know that sounds crazy but that is the way it is.


No one is buying OTA receivers in the US. Walmart had 19 big screen HDTV
MONITORS advertised on their website and only ONE OTA receiver at $568
that is also a satellite receiver. They also have ONE TOKEN integrated
HDTV set. There was one ad that I know of selling an OTA receiver in the
US last week.



How many HDTV boxes has SA or Motorolla or Pace or Panasonic shipped.
Include this your adoption statistics. Based upon the waiting list in my
area for available cable HDTV STBs there are a lot of people adopting HDTV.


I never suggested otherwise. Over the last 4 years I have stated many
time that HDTV will do very well on cable and satellite and the
Internet. It could do well with OTA with the proper modulation to. You
confuse my problem with the 8-VSB modulation with HDTV. Of course HDTV
is being adopted by many people it is wonderful. All I am saying is that
with COFDM it would be doing much better not only in the US but in the
world. The US choice of 8-VSB has delayed HDTV around the world.


Who are we kidding?



No one .. I know a lot people enjoying HDTV.


I am only talking about the OTA 8-VSB modulation disaster. Has it
affected HDTV uptake yes but HDTV would survive if there was no OTA at
all. In Europe for example they are now delivering HD via satellite. The
fact that terrestrial broadcasting is SD in Europe will have no affect
on HDTV. Those who want it will be able to get it. Most production
houses in Europe are heavily into HD.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 HomeCinemaBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.