UK indoor

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...
...
... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
...
...

Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions,
and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed,
I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile
reception of digital TV is a requirement.

Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch
television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would
I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices.
Why?

What is it about digital TV and mobility that attracts you? Even if I
wanted to watch TV while walking down the street, I could do that with a
small analog TV from Radio Shack. Analog mobile TV has been possible for
decades. What is it you want so badly from digital mobile TV that I can't
get with the analog Radio Shack device (if I actually wanted such a device)?

The DTV standard in the US, and standards around the world, made high
definition a central feature of digital TV, though not the only feature.
The small mobile screens you speak of certainly would not be used for high
definition content. So - I would agree with others on this newsgroup that
high definition is of little interest to you, at least with regard to
digital mobile TV.

In addition, though I love good programming when it can be found on TV, I
have to make a conscious effort while at home to turn the TV set off or else
I might "vegetate" in front of the "boob tube". Too many homes have
families that are zombie-like in front of the TV with the result that simple
communication between family members becomes rare. Sometimes you just have
to turn the TV off to allow normal human interactions to go on.

When I leave my house, I want to see the world, to see people, and perhaps
talk to people. If I have my face buried in some mobile TV, I am as much a
zombie as the person who is hypnotized by his TV in his living room. If I'm
watching a mobile TV, I won't see the world and I won't see people.

Sometimes, I go to a club near to where I live - to get out of my house, and
to socialize. From time to time, the club owner turns on their TV, simply
so that the club does not appear quiet and "dead". I always ask him to turn
it off. I explain that the reason I am at the club, and the reason that I
left my house, is that I want to interact with the world, and socialize with
people ...*and* get away from TV. I explain that if I wanted to watch TV, I
would have stayed at home - by myself.

So, Bob, help me understand who would want or need mobile TV, and why. I'm
just not getting it.

Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV
compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma
TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its
internal receiver was made useless. People have known about the switch to
digital since the late 1990's, or at least have been told about it in
various forums, and have been making purchases accordingly. I doubt very
seriously that Congress or the FCC are going to change directions this far
into the game, especially when your proposed modulation scheme has its own
set of problems. I could see the reaction when folks that have made a huge
investment in HDTV equipment are forced to replace their equipment again,
and suddenly have new reception problems because of impulse noise, etc. I,
for one, would become very political if I actually thought that your dreams
and schemes were anything but the fantasy of a failed businessman who can
not accept the fact that he backed the wrong horse in a technological
gamble.


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...
wrote:
Bob,

So who is going to reimburse consumers, manufacturers, broadcasters, and
retailers for all the now useless 8-VSB equipment? The government?
Are people just going to have to take the financial hit? Have you
figured out the total cost to society of a change? It would certainly
be in the billions of dollars.

I would love to get the Chinese version of COFDM combined with the
Microsoft's codec and go back in a time machine to 1995 and give the
FCC a demonstration. But I really think too much water has passed under
the bridge to change things now. I can't find any time machines
for sale on eBay, so I think we are out of luck.

IB

Why the same people who are reimbursing all the portable NTSC TV owners or
all the analog TV owners I should say. The same people that will buy a
converter for every device that has an NTSC tuner in it today or do you
believe all 25 million analog TV sets sold this year are just plain out of
luck because they should have known that NTSC was on its last legs and
would be replaced sometime soon. Or the 25 million that will be sold this
year for that matter. We know a transition is coming but no one has told
the public. No notice, no stickers na da.

Is there a book somewhere that list how much time is required before a
country can switch to a better modulation when they find out the one they
have s**ks? If you have to take care of everyone that would be hurt by a
modulation switch then the interval between changes shouldn't matter. The
only thing that should matter is does it make sense to change? If we don't
change now will we have to change latter? How much later and why should we
wait? If we change now will it cost more or will it cost more latter when
we change then? How much do we gain by changing now and how much do we
lose if we change later?

And if we change again should we think more about how we go about this in
the first place? Should we lock ourselves into a system that does not
allow for an upgrade even when we know that an upgrade will likely be a
good idea and we have a pretty good idea when it could take place and
there is something we could do to prepare for it? (MPEG4, VP6 were well
along in planning stages five years ago).

Or could we just allow both systems to operate in the same space.

How about that one???

If 8-VSB is as good as many say here there is no NO risk that anything
will happen. NO one will switch to COFDM. If they are anywhere near being
equal NO broadcaster will switch. It would be crazy to be that other
modulation that requires another receiver.

If COFDM and 8-VSB are anywhere near being equal in performance there is
NO risk to 8-VSB in allowing COFDM as Sinclair ask for in 2000. What the
8-VSB proponents knew in 2000 and know very well today is that if COFDM is
allowed in the US ALL broadcasters would switch en masse, in a heart beat.

Bob Miller

In article ,
"Neil - Salem, MA USA" writes:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...
...
... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
...
...

Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions,
and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed,
I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile
reception of digital TV is a requirement.

Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch
television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would
I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices.
Why?

The big market for mobile TV would be on mass transit, where there would
be an additional revenue stream for the mass transit agency and a new
business for Bob. This would probably entail Jerry Springer with
tampon/condom commercials interspersed. Any claim of 'childrens'
entertainment would neglect the vast superiority of nicely reviewed
and controlled DVDs that play very well on the SUV video screen(s).
(Imagine letting your kids choose between Jerry Springer and Powerpuff
girls... Bob is 'Jerry' and most real world people prefer their kids
seeing powerpuff, knd or even spongebob.)

For 'news' and other timely info, the good old (and safe) radio
works great. More visual distractions for the driver just won't be
well received in our society.

John

Neil - Salem, MA USA wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...

...
... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
...

Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions, and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed,
I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile reception of digital TV is a requirement.

Not a requirement a necessity.

Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would
I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices. Why?


What is it about digital TV and mobility that attracts you? Even if I wanted to watch TV while walking down the street, I could do that with a
small analog TV from Radio Shack. Analog mobile TV has been possible for decades. What is it you want so badly from digital mobile TV that I can't
get with the analog Radio Shack device (if I actually wanted such a device)?

But you can't watch analog TV while walking down the street after analog
turnoff. That small market of free mobile TV goes away after analog
turnoff. And while it exist today as you say one reason it is small is
because it works badly like all analog TV. Remember the reason for cable
was originally to offer better reception of NTSC. Many would argue today
that cable and satellite exist because of the thousand channels they can
deliver. I disagree, far fewer channels OTA today would put both out of
business if they could be received anywhere anytime.

The DTV standard in the US, and standards around the world, made high definition a central feature of digital TV, though not the only feature.
The small mobile screens you speak of certainly would not be used for high definition content. So - I would agree with others on this newsgroup that
high definition is of little interest to you, at least with regard to digital mobile TV.

The mobile screen shows the programming first not the resolution. Anyone
would opt for higher resolution if they can have it but the primary
reason for TV is the story, the game not the resolution. You want to see
the game first and then if it is possible and not too much of a chore
you will go for better resolution. That is and will be true of cell
phone reception. It is the biggest argument I have against the Qualcomm
and Crown Castle cell phone DTV ventures I have. They will reduce
resolution to fit the cell phone and increase programming. I think there
is a bigger market for higher resolution programming for all size
screens. For example the cell phone of the future will receive an HD res
program and either show it on its own small screen or allow you to watch
it on a pocket projector, a heads up display, a laptop or any size
screen including an HD set.

In addition, though I love good programming when it can be found on TV, I have to make a conscious effort while at home to turn the TV set off or else
I might "vegetate" in front of the "boob tube". Too many homes have families that are zombie-like in front of the TV with the result that simple
communication between family members becomes rare. Sometimes you just have to turn the TV off to allow normal human interactions to go on.

When I leave my house, I want to see the world, to see people, and perhaps talk to people. If I have my face buried in some mobile TV, I am as much a
zombie as the person who is hypnotized by his TV in his living room. If I'm watching a mobile TV, I won't see the world and I won't see people.

Sometimes, I go to a club near to where I live - to get out of my house, and to socialize. From time to time, the club owner turns on their TV, simply
so that the club does not appear quiet and "dead". I always ask him to turn it off. I explain that the reason I am at the club, and the reason that I
left my house, is that I want to interact with the world, and socialize with people ...*and* get away from TV. I explain that if I wanted to watch TV, I
would have stayed at home - by myself.

So, Bob, help me understand who would want or need mobile TV, and why. I'm just not getting it.



No argument with most of what you say, I agree. But we are talking about
the survival of OTA free broadcast TV. It has already shrunk from 100%
of viewers to something from 15% to 4.6% who rely on it for TV to the
highest of 40% of homes who have at least one TV set still hooked up to
an antenna, digital or analog though they don't depend on it.

This has nothing to do with the TV culture we live in, only whether OTA
free TV will survive the digital transition. The other subject is
another discussion in which I think we both agree.

So if a broadcaster today has say 15% of his viewers dependent on OTA
and that number is declining or as some are now saying in the House
Commerce Committee it has hit bottom at 4.6% who actually rely on OTA
and can't afford cable or satellite, what makes you think they will
survive? They are on life support as it is. The feeding tube is must
carry on cable. If the number can't go any lower and it is NOT rising
why are we protecting this OTA free thing as the Chairman of the FCC
asked. And now I might add it is the elephant in the room at the House
Commerce Committee.

Let me put it this way if must carry was overturned by the courts would
most TV stations in the US survive? Could they pay their electric bills?
The best content would go directly to cable and satellite and the
transmitters and their cost would be eliminated in many markets don't
you think? The best use of the spectrum broadcasters use for channels
below 51 is NOT to deliver a signal to the local cable company. So it
would find its best use if must carry, an artificial construct created
by the political power of broadcasters to protect themselves from
competition, went away.

In a world that has abandoned OTA reception by at least 85% and possibly
as much as 95.4% would the best use of the spectrum be to broadcast to
fixed receivers found in your living room? When that venue is already
being attacked by a new service, broadband Internet, that will also
compete for fixed reception in your living room.

What do the numbers have to get to before someone says hey I have a
better idea. We could use this spectrum to do X or Y or Z. And X, Y and
Z all have to do with delivering data to customers where ever they are.
That BTW includes in their living rooms. You don't lose the living room
by making reception ubiquitous. You only expand your market to
everywhere. And everywhere is something cable and satellite can't do or
do competitively. For example satellite can deliver mobile if you have
an expensive antenna and even then it will be excruciatingly line of
sight. No building or trees can get in the way.

Satellite only works for a portable solution in my book unless you build
a terrestrial repeater system like XM or Sirius did which could make it
truly mobile but only in cities where the repeaters are and then you
really have a terrestrial system.

So when I say mobile I mean to extend your coverage to all markets,
fixed, portable and mobile. I am not talking about ONLY mobile and ONLY
while you are moving. I am talking about simple easy reception
everywhere on a multitude of receivers of all sizes. I am talking about
OTA using its strength to compete with cable and satellite. I am saying
that if they don't do that then what we have is a failed OTA that
pretends to be alive with the fig leaf of must carry.

In other words a massive waste of spectrum. The question for Congress
then becomes why? Why not just invent another figment to allow
broadcasters must carry on cable without the need for any spectrum. Then
they could have the best of both worlds. Lots of money for selling off
the spectrum to those who would use it to maximize its potential and
broadcasters that would not have to pay electric bills for transmitters
that broadcast to no one.

They have a very difficult task legally with that solution since the
courts will see though the fiction a lot easier if there are no
transmitters used as a fig leaf. Remember this Congressional must carry
allusion was only held up by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 and
the deciding vote was very iffy.

If the must carry laws go back to the Supreme Court with multicasting
added to them and the modern reality that even fewer people depend on
OTA than was true before and you can expect that the whole must carry
concept could be overturned.

Now as to your and my lack of need for mobile TV. The reality is that
most of the world will have mobile TV on cell phones, lap tops and DVD
players as well as just mobile TV sets in the coming years. This will
not be your daddy's analog mobile TV. This will be true in the US also
with at least four ventures in the works. These ventures will first
address the lucrative and trendy cell phone market but will very quickly
be in all vehicles and then they will attack broadcasters directly both
cable and satellite. And I predict that these new age broadcaster will
align themselves with broadband Internet seamlessly both tirelessly and
fixed in your living room.

The dinosaur that is 8-VSB DTV to fixed receivers which already looks
ancient to me will look ridiculous to the next generation if they are
ever even aware of it. How many of those under 30 today are aware of OTA
TV or DTV? I remember showing by daughter when she was 15 when we had a
cable outage that you could watch TV with an antenna. She was amazed.

That is the fate of ATSC 8-VSB. That is what it was designed for, to
only emulate NTSC and I am afraid that as designed it is doing a good
job of emulating the death rattle of analog TV and simply joining the
downward spiral already in place.

In other countries both HD and mobile and easy reception are all being
addressed and OTA TV is having an incredible rebirth. Not here.

We need the same thing they have, a modulation that offers easy plug and
play reception on inexpensive receivers that work anywhere mobile, fixed
or portable.

Bob Miller

Phil Ross wrote:
Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma
TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its internal receiver was made useless. People have known about the switch to
digital since the late 1990's, or at least have been told about it in various forums, and have been making purchases accordingly. I doubt very
seriously that Congress or the FCC are going to change directions this far into the game, especially when your proposed modulation scheme has its own
set of problems. I could see the reaction when folks that have made a huge investment in HDTV equipment are forced to replace their equipment again,
and suddenly have new reception problems because of impulse noise, etc. I, for one, would become very political if I actually thought that your dreams
and schemes were anything but the fantasy of a failed businessman who can not accept the fact that he backed the wrong horse in a technological
gamble.


If we change modulations or not people will become very aware of the
difference between COFDM and 8-VSB. There will be other OTA broadcasters
using COFDM and the BS about its problems will be put to rest.

Many who have given up on OTA DTV or who suffer in silence because they
think it is their fault for not being smart enough will be amazed at OTA
digital reception on cell phones, laptops etc. that will be far better
than 8-VSB.

We were not the only ones who picked COFDM, others include ABC, NBC,
Pappas, Sinclair, Granite and others who were intimidated into silence
by our Congress. Our business has not failed. It has not started and not
because we picked the wrong horse. We picked the right one.

Our plan does not require any of the spectrum used by broadcasters and I
would be very happy if they were stuck with 8-VSB as a businessman if we
at the same time could use the spectrum we have purchased. We cannot
because broadcasters who were given their spectrum for free still squat
on the spectrum we purchased and paid for.

It is the digital transition being stuck that keeps us from launching
our venture. It is broadcasters being stuck with 8-VSB that holds us
back not us being stuck with 8-VSB because we are not. We can use COFDM.
We just can't use our spectrum. 8-VSB holds up competitors from using
spectrum to compete with current broadcasters, cable and satellite. That
delay is what the transition to digital was all about from day one back
in 1986 and it is still working very well.

Bob Miller

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

From Digital Spy forum
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=205206

MRDAB writes...
"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
is very happily picking up all muxes.

I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"

Snip...

The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he
located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile
radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of
info).

P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC??
Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good.

Another Item.
Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
Another BM plant?

One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts.
But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group
with his meanderings.

Tim Keating wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:


From Digital Spy forum
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=205206

MRDAB writes...
"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
is very happily picking up all muxes.

I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"


Snip...

The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he
located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile
radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of
info).

P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC??
Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good.

Another Item.
Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
Another BM plant?

The UK is semi-metrified. Distances are in miles and speeds are in miles
per hour. At least they were when I was in Norther Ireland and Scotland
last fall.

One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts.
But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group
with his meanderings.

Nope. It never does.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

SAC 441 ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Chicago,New
York City,Houston TX ,Detroit,MI and others represent challenges to that
kind of receptivity that is not evidenced in the UK perhaps maybe save
for London.

Although Houston does have a decent number of tall buildings, there aren't
many residences close to those buildings. It's much more of a "suburbs"
city as far as TV reception is concerned. Although the city proper is
huge, the tall buildings are only in the central business district.

On the other hand, cities like Las Vegas that have sprawl of the "business
district" also have problems like you mention. Boston can also be bad, as
there are many residences in close to the taller buildings.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFri...rCustomers.gif

Phil Ross ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV
compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma
TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its
internal receiver was made useless.

This is also a case where DirecTV probably would *not* step up and provide
free replacements for the 1,000,000+ HD receivers for their subscribers
unless they got some cash from the government to offset their costs.

--
Jeff Rife | "Oooh, I love children...
| they taste like chicken."
|
| -- Heddy Newman, "Herman's Head"

Matthew L. Martin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Bob Miller wrote:
They depend totally on must carry. Sooner or later
Congress is going to notice that they are simply not using those
channels below 51.

Really? What makes you think that they are ignorant of the uses of that
spectrum.

Bob keeps spouting the myth about "broadcasters depending on must-carry",
when the reality is that only a very few stations in most markets ever
invoke "must carry" on DBS or cable. Any ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, or PBS
station has no problem getting their signal carried without "must carry".
Only low-value stations seem to have this problem.

For those stations (home shopping channel repeaters, etc.), I have to admit
that I agree with Bob that "must carry" is the only thing keeping them
going. Of course, one of Bob's pet networks--PAX--is also in the same
boat because their management got greedy. Most cable and DBS providers
now have both a local *and* the national PAX channels, so the local
affiliates basically got screwed by the parent network.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
| because he was moral they called him insane.
| Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
| A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"