UK indoor

"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
...

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.

Why would DirecTV care what happens to OTA? Are they not the ones launching
a new satellite to add 1500 HD channels (as their current ad states)?

"Neil - Salem, MA USA" wrote in message
...

"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?

There are a couple of reasons: first and foremost is that if you can receive
TV with a small antenna when driving around a large city (with large
buildings) in your car, chances are there will be little problem receiving
TV in your home, even in the presence of large buildings and even with a
small indoor antenna pointed in no particular direction.

Second is that there are plenty of people that just want to have TV in
places where they would not be able to have a large fixed antenna. Places
that might be mobile in the sense or moving while they watch, or just mobile
in the sense of a temporary location, as opposed to their home. DVD and game
systems in the back seats of minvans have become very popular. I don't see
why digital TV wouldn't be a desirable addition to that. I don't have one,
and you appearantly don't either, but I think it's pretty obvious that
there's a very large potential market for it. There are also other
situations in which mobile TV might be desirable (and are used currently):
maybe you have a boring job in a building with no installed TV or antenna.
Maybe you want to watch TV. This is not a new idea. Maybe you also have a
small portable TV you want to take to the ball game to watch either replays
(often less necessary now due to jumbotrons) or another game in progress at
the same time. I would never do this, but I gather some other people do
(security regulations allowing, of course). Maybe you are having a picnic,
but somebody REALLY wants to be able to watch a playoff game while they're
there. Or maybe there is a disaster (such as a fire, flood or storm
affecting your house), and you'd like to be able to watch the news on a
portable TV while you aren't in your home. There are many other
possibilities. Right now, there is no possibility of doing any of these
things with DTV.

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)?

You said it yourself: Analog mobile TV has been possible for decades. So
what happens to mobile TV when they turn off analog TV?

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.

Probably true, but it appears that most Americans have little interest in HD
either. Many people buying flat panel TVs, for instance, are far more
attracted to the fact that they are flat than to whether or not they are
high definition. If they like the wide-screen aspect, it is usually to watch
DVDs, which aren't even HD. It appears that the desire for HD is far from
universal also, but who here is willing to admit that?

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

Not everyone needs or wants mobile TV. But there are a substantial number
that do. On the other hand, not everybody wants or needs high definition,
either, and yet somehow the home theatre crowd has made it the centerpiece
of the entire digital TV transition, everyone else be damned.

I, for instance, would probably never use mobile TV. But then I never really
used a walkmanm, game boy, or portable MP3 player either (and am unlikely to
in the future), so I know that just because *I* don't doesn't mean other
people won't want to.

"Tim Keating" wrote in message
...

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?

I haven't been to the UK in years, but on British TV broadcasts at least,
they still use "feet", "yards" and "miles" frequently.

Tim Keating wrote:

Soo.. And several of them are just outside of 30 mile range(48.3km)..

29.. Fenton.. 49.5km
77.. The Wrekin 49.1 km
78.. The Wrekin B 49.1 km

But not many repeaters well within 30 miles as you stated, only two and
with only three just outside 30 miles with power levels of...
Fenton 100, 100, 100, 50, 50 AND 50 Watts
Wrekin 2kw, 2kw, 2kw, and 2kw
Wrekin B 2kw, 2kw, 2kw, 2kw, 1kw, and 1kw

Still speaks to COFDM's problem..
@ 30 to 31 Miles it already needs repeaters to function correctly.

Not really. It speaks to COFDM being able to install NANO power
repeaters anywhere there might be a terrain problem without using
translators that requre another scarce frequency.

It says that COFDM can be received reliably at 30 miles with only 8 kW
and 10 kW transmitters. It does not say that it could not be received
furture away. Most of the repeaters seem to be to the West, SW and NW of
Sutton Coldfield and on the other side of Birmingham. There may be
issues with the city clutter causing low signal strength there.

It doesn't say anything about how COFDM would compare to 8-SVB if they
were using MEGAWATT power levels nor does it say what would happen to
8-VSB if you used 50 Watts of power.

With 8-VSB all you can do is dial up the power to MEGAWATTS in the hope
that will solve the problem. With COFDM you can use lower power main
transmitters and fill in problem areas with NANO power. COFDM is a well
designed modern modulation.


As for the rest of your post .. snippy...
Comparing apples to oranges.. (non-contigous(UK-COFDM) verses
contiguous(US-8VSB)

The UK's OTA COFDM coverage is spotty as best. No contiguous coverage.

I will go by their coverage map that suggest 75% coverage of the
population and the missing 25% has mostly to do with border problems
that can't be fixed till other countries go digital and turn off their
analog transmitters.

Bob Miller

B.T.W.. The UK has a one time payment (150 pounds, no monthly charges) satellite service to fill in the transmission gaps. Note:
Sat users still have to pay the UK's annual TV tax.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:

wrote:

Bob,

I was again accused of being 'you' over at AVS Forum because I asked
what is the difference between the front end of a 8-VSB tuner and the
front end of a COFDM tuner. You keep saying it is cheaper to make a
COFDM tuner, but with 8-VSB receiver chips priced so low ($8.), how can
that be? A COFDM HDTV receiver will need a scaler and the same
up-front components as a 8-VSB receiver,...right? Also you seem to be
comparing the cost of USA 1080i/720p capable receivers with UK's
meager 600 line capable receivers. Isn't some of the price
difference due to
the fact that one is high definition and the other is not?

IB (not Bob Miller - laughs!)


http://www.angliac.com/newsarchive/8...rticle_id=1700

The latest single chip COFDM from STMicroelectronics is $4.50

And then you have IP cost of at least $6 for 8-VSB compared to 60
Cents for COFDM.

After they mark up these differing cost and factor in real market
size, that is what they can realistically sell, you have a pretty wide
price differential.

We have documented a $3.50 price difference for the chip and a $5.40
IP cost difference which totals $8.90. Mark that up a couple times and
you have real money.


Of course bob completely ignores standard practices. Purchased IP does
not get marked up the same way as purchased built goods. He keeps
inflating the IP costs to defend the indefensible. Even LG told him, and
he quoted them, that the modulation scheme had very little impact on
price when compared to the HD decoding section.

It has the stated impact at the minimum of $5.50 additional IP royalty
cost and $3.50 additional chip cost before we even shop. What the markup
is may vary but there is a markup. May be 100%, 200% whatever but you
have to pay all your business expenses, marketing cost, sales cost taxes
etc. with those markups.

All LG told us was that the 5th gen 8-VSB chip cost was not much more
than previous 4th gen chip cost period.

Bob Miller

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:

The chips we are comparing are for demodulation and the COFDM chip was
fully compliant with all DVB-T so that includes HD.


So what? Being able to demodulate the data is the cheapest part of an HD
receiver. You should know this since you quoted an LG response to your
question about fifth generation receivers. That response clearly stated
that the demodulation scheme was far cheaper than the HD decoding
subsystem.

Keep on lying, bob. You will be called on it _every_ time.

LG said nothing about cheapest just the same as previous 8-VSB
generations. The 8-VSB cost on the demod side is still $5.50 more in IP
and $3.50 more in chip before we shop.

Bob Miller

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

...
And I predict that these new age broadcaster will align themselves with
broadband Internet seamlessly both tirelessly and fixed in your living
room.
...


Though I have always been enamored with anything that is broadcast
over-the-air (radio or television), I can imagine myself being attracted to
television over the Internet. Why? Because maybe some clever entrepreneurs
will realize that there are many people who, like me, what to choose the
television stations a la carte. As I've said before on this newsgroup, I
currently buy cable TV from Comcast. I don't like paying for many channels
I never watch. (I watch at most 10 or 15 channels out of several hundred.)

I would pay for TV over the Internet if:

1) I could pay for only those channels I want
2) The quality of the channels was as good as that from any other medium
3) Some of the channels were high definition
4) The total cost to me was less than what I now pay for Comcast

Neil
Salem, MA USA


On the Internet there is not need for channels just content.

Content will have all kinds of resolution including 720P and 1080P, I
doubt if 1080i would be used long term.

Quality will only be restricted by your hardware, your connection speed
to the Internet and the content providers proximity in hops or the
proximity of their content to you.

And when you say Internet don't imply wired when it could be wireless
and in my opinion will be mostly wireless in a few years. New age OTA
broadcasters will also do IP broadcasting that will complement your
Internet access seamlessly.

Bob Miller

On 4 Apr 2005 11:18:53 -0700, "
wrote:

There is no way in hell Congress is going to spend 10 billion dollars
on a digital transmission subsidy. I would guess 2 billion at most.
They want to make money selling off the dead airspace, not lose it to
people who can afford to buy new TVs or cheap adapters. The adapter
boxes can be $80. each or less. 2 billion buys allot of them. Even
most people on welfare have cable and don't use their OTA analog
receivers anyway.

No way in ****ING hell is the US going to switch.
COFDM is not a feasible technology for US DTV transmissions. Period.

Besides COFDM's major/fatal impulse noise problem.. Which in turn
results in a major power problem.

It also as a significant adjacent channel interference problem.
I.E.. COFDM uses 5.7Mhz out of a 6Mhz frequency assignment..
8VSB uses only 5.3Mhz out of 6Mhz..

Thus COFDM transmissions interferes with US NTSC transmissions on
adjacent channels. (P.S.. This type channel allocation happens in
nearly every major market.. )

Oh.. increasing the COFDM power to overcome impulse noise issues,
only makes the adjacent channel interference problem worst..

This aspect also precludes.. Bob's many transmitter tower
approach.. Since existing NTSC broadcasts occur from single towers..
Mixing in many smaller transmitter towers creates zones of increasing
cross channel interference. (COFDM near the smaller towers
interferes with NTSC transmission being broadcast by a more distance
transmitters.. )

Additionally... SFN (on channel repeaters) encounters significant
problems when you go over 38km main tower.. (Side lobes from repeater
signal and main transmission lobe start canceling out) In the US,
COFDM quickly run's out of available channels without a viable SFN.
(P.S. Neither the UK nor Oz currently use SFN COFDM repeater schemes.)


That's three FATAL strikes against COFDM in the US.
1. Power/impulse noise/range..
2. Interference with existing NTSC broadcasts on adjacent 6mhz
channel assignments.
3. Insufficient # of free channels to implement. (non-viable SFN
capability..

Now you can try too imagine deploying a DTV system without a valid
transitional scheme... But it ain't going to happen in the real
world.. no way ... no how.. end of story..

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Matthew Vaughan wrote:
DVD and game
systems in the back seats of minvans have become very popular. I don't see
why digital TV wouldn't be a desirable addition to that.

Commercials.

Unless the audio is delivered by headsets, the driver is still going to
hear the audio. The audio from commercials is far more distracting to the
driver than that of a DVD (yes, even more than Teletubbies or Barney) or
kid's game system.

-- 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:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

The chips we are comparing are for demodulation and the COFDM chip
was fully compliant with all DVB-T so that includes HD.



So what? Being able to demodulate the data is the cheapest part of an
HD receiver. You should know this since you quoted an LG response to
your question about fifth generation receivers. That response clearly
stated that the demodulation scheme was far cheaper than the HD
decoding subsystem.

Keep on lying, bob. You will be called on it _every_ time.

LG said nothing about cheapest just the same as previous 8-VSB
generations.

What is that in response to? It makes no sense.

The 8-VSB cost on the demod side is still $5.50 more in IP
and $3.50 more in chip before we shop.


$5.50 on a $250 object?

LG was quite specific in their response to you. There is essntially no
cost difference between demodulating COFDM and 8-VSB. The real cost
difference between an SD receiver and an HD receiver is in decoding the
HD. Anyone who doesn't have an agenda can figure that out.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?