artifact city

wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:06:24 -0500 Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:00:18 -0500 Bob Miller wrote:
|
| | We thought that this was true many years ago and thought that the
| | broadcast spectrum should do what it could do best in the world of the
| | Internet and cable and satellite and that was to deliver IPTV to devices
| | that could be mobile or portable or fixed.
|
| The broadcast spectrum also does something else well. It delivers content
| to homes without the issues imposed by various cable, satellite, and telco
| companies. The real death of OTA would be for Congress to intervene and
| pass laws requiring all land and satellite based services to operate on a
| very competitive basis and at the utmost level of quality, without the
| business tactics of tricking people to get more than they need. This would
| include things like ala-cart channel and program selections.
|
| If we go the other way and shut off OTA delivery, the cable and satellite
| companies will just make things worse.
|
|
| | In a couple of months a lot of the TV spectrum will be auctioned of to
| | be used for two way wireless mobile Internet and mobile TV.
|
| That's a whole other area where competition is needed.
|
|
| | The rest of the TV spectrum, channels 2-51, is not and cannot compete
| | with fixed services like cable, satellite and FIOS if they don't have
| | mobile and portable capabilities. We see this today as OTA DTV is dieing.
| |
| | It is just a matter of time before channels 2-51 follow 52-69 into
| | either auctions or a change in modulation and codec so that they can
| | compete in this new world.
|
| Just the codec change is needed.
|
| But you would agree that if all current receivers are to be made
| obsolete by a change in codec it would make sense to check out the
| latest modulation to see what the best one would be.

Changing the modulation, even if there was a better one, is a whole lot
different than changing the codec. A new codec can be supported through
transition. Many devices are likely upgradeable via firmware. Then the
broadcasters can decide when enough receiver transition has taken place
to decide, perhaps even on a program-by-program basis, to change over to
the new codec (MPEG4 if this were done today).

Not so, Congress and the FCC not broadcasters determine what codec will
be used and as of now MPEG2 is the only codec that can be used and no
current receiver that I know of can handle MPEG4.

There is no download capability of any current 8-VSB receiver that would
allow an upgrade to MPEG4. That is precisely what we proposed in 1999
and 2000. Specifically we asked that the receivers have a general
purpose processor that COULD be upgradeable. Didn't happen.

| There is no cost to consumers and little cost to broadcasters who would
| be more than happy to upgrade to a better modulation.

A whole new transmitter RF system is "little cost" to broadcasters?
The transition from VSB to COFDM would mean doubling the peak power
capability of the transmitter. That means a somewhat more expensive
transmitter and more power waste as heat. But the big cost is that
this would require a complete non-trivial changeout of the RF components
of the system.

Little cost, no need for a new transmitter. Just need a new modulator
and broadcasters are already very excited about buying much more
expensive 8-VSB mobile solutions, 10 or 12 different proposals being
worked on in secret, all of which are bit hogs and will require new
modulators.

Broadcasters are already on board, that is, to buy more expensive new
modulators that will use a variant of 8-VSB that are bit hogs that will
imperil any OTA HD content while catering to mobile users.

THIS WILL HAPPEN!!

The only broadcasters that would want that would be those intending to
change their target from home OTA TV viewers to mobile devices. And that
would have to involve a complete restructuring of how allocations of the
spectrum/geography is done. COFDM is more effective for mobile device
purposes only if there are lots of smaller range transmitters with fewer
shadows in coverage (mobile devices do not have the ability to install a
higher antenna, for example).

ALL broadcasters will warmly accept and buy into the 8-VSB variant bit
hog HD killer to get to mobile. They are on board as we speak. They will
all make any current 8-VSB receiver obsolete in spirit if not in
technical legal BS.

Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge the BS and go for the best codec
and modulation.

Simple answer is yes.

| It could be that the latest version of 8-VSB is the best.
|
| Are you saying that you would not take the opportunity to upgrade even
| to a better 8-VSB???

If I were to upgrade the modulation, it would probably be to QAM. Leave
COFDM to the mobile devices on the 700 MHz segment.

COFDM IS NOT A MODULATION!!!! Notice I always or most always say COFDM
based modulation. The base modulation used by DVB-T is QAM!!!!

COFDM is a multiplexer which is used with QAM to make it better. QAM by
itself is a wash with 8-VSB. QAM is probably a touch better.

| I have NO problem upgrading to a better 8-VSB if it is the best
| modulation after testing.

Changing the modulation would be a huge problem. Changing the codec
would involve a lot smoother transition.

Changing the modulation could be as easy as pushing a button. We did it
in test with Tanberg transmitters that literally had a button labeled
DVB-T COFDM and another labeled 8-VSB. At other sites we switched
modulators in ten minutes either way.

| In fact if the heads up the *** gang would only upgrade if it is to a
| better 8-VSB even if it is clearly not the best modulation then I could
| live with that.
|
| But staying with what we have is clearly the death of free OTA and
| possibly the plan.

I'm in favor of the change to MPEG4. If cable systems start using it, then
digital-cable-ready TVs will have MPEG4 already (and QAM, too). So why not
make the design of TVs such that either VSB or QAM can be used to demodulate
to the bit stream, and MPEG2 or MPEG4 can be used to decode the video from
the selected transport component?

Do you know of a cable system that would be willing to change over to the
COFDM modulation? Even though dynamic range linearity is critical even for
a cable distribution system, what they already have is effectively FDM in
the form of 100 or so 6 MHz carriers. So COFDM's peak-to-average power
issues would not be of much significance to cable. So it should be easy
enough for a cable system to change over. Right?

I don't see any advantage to cable using COFDM.

TV sets of the near future will come with OTA receivers built in that
will be capable of receiving all modulations used in the world with one
exception, 8-VSB. They will work with the Chinese standard, DTMB, the
European standard DVB-T, DVB-T2 and DVB-H. They will work with the
Japanese standard ISDB-T. They will work with various cable and
satellite system.

But they won't work with 8-VSB because manufactures of such on board
receivers cannot believe that 8-VSB will last longer than a snowball in
hell. No one takes it seriously.

Bob Miller

JXStern wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:14:01 -0500, Bob Miller wrote:

The way the top down heavy handed political corrupt solution works is
all about locking in IP royalty payments, cash, locking in a cash flow
for outdated solutions.

Diversity and all such things are hallmarks of the Internet.

So the Internet will lead the way.

If the people lead, the leaders will follow, and like that.


The last thing the corrupt political process wants is diversity or the
chance to change to a better codec or modulation. Our 8-VSB and MPEG2
were bought and paid for by lobbyist who want to get what they paid for,
the cash flow, for 50 years. Damn the public interest and damn any
thought of what is best for the American public.

Write Mr. Google a letter, maybe they'd like to lead on this. Could
be beaucoup bux in it for someone.

I have written Google. I received no response.

I mean, look how Hollywood has screwed up the music system. Got
themselves royalties on blank videotapes. Resisted VCRs because it
would kill the movies. Hah. But eventually, moaning and groaning and
fighting their own best interests, things eventually stumble along in
a positive direction. Keep bitchin', they deserve it - need it!


Again such diversity was anathema to the corrupt political process that
has captured our government.

Easy now, let's just say they screwed up, that's pretty much endemic
to our government and pretty much all governments, bureacracies, and
establishments in all times and places.

No, just the opposite this was no screw up. This was intentional and the
parties involved worked nights and weekends to make it happen.

When Billy Tauzin retired from the House he had to flip a coin to see
where he would go. Drugs or Media. He played major roles in both but
drugs offered the most money.

With his help the drug companies pick your pocket or will most likely
pick your pocket for $thousands and you are stuck with MPEG2 and 8-VSB.
Every single government agency is now part of a fascist system
controlled by big multi-jurisdictional (read NO jurisdiction applies)
global companies. China has $1.4 trillion, the Middle East $4 trillion
and Japan another $trillion or so and they already or will have major
control of these global companies that lobby our government will very
full pockets.

I would guess that at least a third of the average Americans paycheck
goes to pay for direct corruption through money extracted by taxes and
wasted, stolen or misappropriated or by inefficiencies and corruption in
our economy created by corruption in DC.

How do you weigh the loss of the use of the OTA spectrum for the last 10
years? No broadcaster has been promoting it, no manufacturer has been
actively promoting it, no retailer has been selling it.

It has gone to waste for ten years because of a politically corrupt
decision to choose MPEG2 and 8-VSB. The cost never are counted for such
outcomes and there are many in most industries.

How do you way the loss of lives, the poor health of million of our
citizens because of our corrupt drug industry.


Bob Miller

J.

"Bob Miller" wrote
The last thing the corrupt political process wants is diversity or the
chance to change to a better codec or modulation. Our 8-VSB and MPEG2 were
bought and paid for by lobbyist who want to get what they paid for, the
cash flow, for 50 years. Damn the public interest and damn any thought of
what is best for the American public.

We suggested in 1999 that an upgrade path for the MPEG2 codec should be
required. If that had been done your current 8-VSB receiver would work out
of the box with MPEG4.

We also wanted a dual modulation system. We didn't want to erase 8-VSB, we
wanted the option for broadcasters to use another COFDM based modulation.

Again such diversity was anathema to the corrupt political process that
has captured our government.

For any newbies here, this habitual liar's agenda was all about
mobile-video/advertising financial gains and nothing more.

"Alan F" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Tantalust wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote

One way is to just change.

You can learn to practice with one of these:

http://www.stupid.com/stat/OBSS.html

LOL! Good one. I'm saving that link. Thanks.

Alan F


bob likes this one, too:

http://www.wonderfullywacky.com/headbanger.htm ;-)

On Dec 2, 9:27 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
ninphan wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:35 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
ninphan wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:11 am, JXStern wrote:
I've been watching the HD about a week now. I like it, can't imagine
going back, should have switched earlier, and all that.
Snippage has occurred

The NTSC signal may always be fuzzier, with so many fewer pixels, but
it still had a smoothness that the repeatedly compressed and
decompressed digital signal, does not currently equal. Well, check in
again in about five years, maybe the lossy codecs will get better in
practice, or someone will offer less compressed material, or even
lossless content. The technology is still pretty young.
J.
Wait until you hook a Blu-ray Disc player up to that bad boy, then
you'll be happier than a pig in mud.
The fanboi strikes again.

Either an HD-DVD or a Blu-ray player is capable (with properly mastered
media) of providing much better than OTA quality.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

Actually it just means that you're an idiot. I don't own an HD DVD
player, so why would I comment on it.

That's really interesting. You slavishly believe any specification that
points to a theoretical benefit of the object of your fanboi lust, but
when virtually the same specifications are available from another
product, you suddenly don't know anything about it anymore.

The technology is also not going to last, which is always the case
when only one manufacturer is trying to introduce a new media without
anyone else's backing.

What technology would that be? Blu-ray? After all, it isn't a standard
accepted by the DVD Consortium.

I also have a reply from Rochard Casey of R&B Films for you which I'll
post in the relevant thread that completely refutes everything you
think you know about 1080i.

Read and refuted. Get over yourself. Physics doesn't change just because
you want it to.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But the specs aren't the same. Your specs probably aren't working or
you just don't read well.
60% increased bandwidth over HD DVD.
66% more capacity.
Oh and while you're at it, you've left off WMV HD which also provides
1080p content and is better than OTA.
You're obviously an idiot and a hypocrite.

On Dec 2, 9:27 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:


Read and refuted. Get over yourself. Physics doesn't change just because
you want it to.

- Show quoted text -

Ha, ha, you call that refuting a point? I don't think so. Your
ignorance on interlaced technology is rather amusing.

On Dec 2, 9:27 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

What technology would that be? Blu-ray? After all, it isn't a standard
accepted by the DVD Consortium.
- Show quoted text -

Wow you're running out of points here quickly. Yes VHS isn't a
standard accepted by the "DVD Forum" (that's the correct name) either
but it sure did okay in its time didn't it?
SACD is not accepted by the DVD Forum yet there are over 20 million
devices on the market capable of it.
Look at the founding members of the DVD Forum.
Look at the members of the Blu-ray Disc Association's Board of
Directors.
Notice anything? That's right!! There almost exactly the same!! The
only CE member missing? Toshiba.\
Do you see any of the other CE members that were founding members of
the DVD Forum on the HD DVD Promotions Group's roster? That's right!!
None of them!!
Thank you, please play again.

ninphan wrote:
On Dec 2, 9:27 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
What technology would that be? Blu-ray? After all, it isn't a standard
accepted by the DVD Consortium.
- Show quoted text -

Wow you're running out of points here quickly. Yes VHS isn't a
standard accepted by the "DVD Forum" (that's the correct name) either
but it sure did okay in its time didn't it?

http://www.dvdforum.org/about-mission.htm

Where it says:

The DVD Forum was founded in 1995 under the original name DVD Consortium.

You are really pathetic. I feel sorry for you.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:38:58 -0500, Bob Miller wrote:

But they won't work with 8-VSB because manufactures of such on board
receivers cannot believe that 8-VSB will last longer than a snowball in
hell. No one takes it seriously.

Ho hum. It appears that the Chilean Gov. isn't taking the European DVB
seriously either. Too many problems is what's reported. Wait, isn't that
the one that uses COFDM? :-)

It appears they are leaning towards the Japanese standard, but 8vsb hasn't
been ruled out yet.

What I don't understand is why you keep pushing COFDM in this newsgroup.
Even if everyone in here agreed with you (and I don't know any that do) it
wouldn't change the fact that 8vsb is here to stay. As for mpeg4, well my
receiver won't decode it or any other protocol. But the video processor in
my receiver will happily decode and display it. But since most TV's, etc.
won't, I doubt you'll see it used anytime in the near future either for
OTA, except for sat.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

On Dec 2, 5:03 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
ninphan wrote:
On Dec 2, 9:27 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
What technology would that be? Blu-ray? After all, it isn't a standard
accepted by the DVD Consortium.
- Show quoted text -

Wow you're running out of points here quickly. Yes VHS isn't a
standard accepted by the "DVD Forum" (that's the correct name) either
but it sure did okay in its time didn't it?

http://www.dvdforum.org/about-mission.htm

Where it says:

The DVD Forum was founded in 1995 under the original name DVD Consortium.

You are really pathetic. I feel sorry for you.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

Wow you've done so much there to refute the main points.
You're full of not only misinformation, but misdirection as well.
Typical HD DVD zealot.