Japan HDTV

poldy wrote:
In article et,
Bob Miller wrote:


Most TV sets sold today would come with COFDM receivers integrated at a
cost of as little as $25.


Broadcast network TV is losing viewership to cable or pay TV channels,
to the Internet, to video games, etc.

So no, there wouldn't be no stampede to buy HDTV tuners because you
supposedly could get better reception of CSI.

How to decipher that last sentence. What do you mean? Should I remove
one, two or three negatives? Give me a clue.

"Mark Crispin" a écrit dans le message de
...
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
Good points but in Berlin the lie is being put to your model.

Berlin does not have HDTV.

So what ? This has nothing to do with the merits of the modulation used.

This was a city that had *two* analog color systems. I don't know if they
cleaned that up post-reunification, or used the DTV transition to do that.

SECAM in East Germany was stopped very shortly after the reunification, more
than 12 years ago!
(all receivers in the East were PAL/SECAM, so it was easy).
This has strictly nothing to do with digital transition there.

Herv=E9 Benoit ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
"Mark Crispin" a =E9crit dans le message de
...
Berlin does not have HDTV.

So what ? This has nothing to do with the merits of the modulation used.

Actually, it does.

It's possible to choose a modulation scheme that does better at low
bitrate data in a given bandwidth if you know that high bitrate (i.e., HD)
is never going to happen.

COFDM happens to have this property: impulse noise problems increase
dramatically when the bitrate is increased and bandwidth is not also
increased to compensate, yet it works OK with SD.

--=20
Jeff Rife | =20
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/ActualCode.gif=20
| =20
| =20

In article . net,
says...
RicSeyler wrote:
Ummmm... It might have to do with them being a culture of rabid techno
freaks.



Bob Miller wrote:

With only 12 million homes capable of HDTV so far, 28 million by end
of 2005, Japan has sold 1.6 million digital TV sets in their first
year of broadcasting with multicasting and cell phone reception both
coming next year.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20041129wo62.htm

Bob Miller



Ya you think?

Yes.

Maybe the rest of the world too. We are the only sane
country while every other country is full of rabid teckno freaks.

No. Just Japan.

Or it
could be that we have a bad modulation 8-VSB while they have a better
one ISDB-T. Could it be that simple? I think so.

Think whatever you want. Everyone else here thinks differently though.

It seems that it is just one of those things an advanced country like
the US will never know or be able to find out.

They really don't care.

Unless of course as Qualcomm, Crown Castle, XMRadio, Sirius, 802.11a and
g, WiLan and almost every other successful RF technology of the present
and near future are created and continue to grow using GROWN UP
modulations based on COFDM we might WAKE UP! Who knows?

You apparently think you do. But your failing utterly at convincing the
rest of us. I most certainly do not care about OTA TV in *any* format,
and would avoid paying a premium for a set that supported it. Period.
That sentiment goes for millions. It doesn't matter what modulation is
used we just -don't care-. This isn't Japan. This isn't Europe. OTA is
just not as important here. Personally I think its a cultural
difference. I haven't tuned into OTA programming in 20 years.. OTA is
much more 'important' in Europe than here, and Japan...is a good place
to look at technology, but its futile and pointless to try and suggest
that technology that succeeds in Japan will work *anywhere* else.

Given there is no way to further either side of the argument stop
beating the horse. Its dead.

Jeff Rife wrote:
Hervé Benoit ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

"Mark Crispin" a écrit dans le message de
...

Berlin does not have HDTV.


So what ? This has nothing to do with the merits of the modulation used.


Actually, it does.

It's possible to choose a modulation scheme that does better at low
bitrate data in a given bandwidth if you know that high bitrate (i.e., HD)
is never going to happen.

What does that mean? COFDM does better at 19.76 Mbps mobile than 8-VSB
does at 19.34 Mbps fixed reception. (Congressional COFDM/8-VSB hearings
2000)

COFDM happens to have this property: impulse noise problems increase
dramatically when the bitrate is increased and bandwidth is not also
increased to compensate, yet it works OK with SD.

Bitrate can be adjusted using COFDM to allow for a more robust reception
in the presence of multipath. Lowering the bitrate has no affect on
impulse noise. I think you have mixed up multipath with impulse noise.

BTW when I turn on or off my desk lamp within two feet of my Samsung or
LG 8-VSB receivers the picture hiccups. Every time! Could that be
impulse noise?

COFDM was able to deliver HD to a mobile receiver at a higher bit rate
per HZ than 8-VSB uses in the US for fixed reception in an Australian test.

And this was on the highways and byways of Sydney where you should
expect a lot of impulse noise from all those vehicles.

Page 13
http://www.dvb.org/documents/newslet...B-SCENE-08.pdf

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:
[snip]

I think HD is great. What is there not to like about HD? What I hate
and the only thing I hate is the take over of the digital transition
in the US by the Consumer Electronics Association and its members.
Something that other countries were able to withstand. We were not.
Our government got bought.

Interestingly the UK Consumer Electronics industry has complained recently
that the publicity for Freeview (the generic name for DVB-T FTA in the UK -
though technically the Freeview consortium only 4 out of the 6 UK DVB-T
multiplexes) has concentrated on telling people they don't need to replace
their TV to upgrade to OTA digital TV and can instead purchase a low cost
external set-top box for around GBP50 (a conservative estimate, I think the
cheapest are around GPB30 these days) to receive all the channels with their
existing TV. (Most of the Freeview information is carried on the BBC -
which has 2 of the 6 UK multiplexes - and is commercial free - and keen for
as many viewers as possible to be able to receive their digital services.
Freeview is particularly good for the BBC as they have 1/3 of the broadcast
space, and many receivers aren't capable of supporting encryption...)

Hmmm - why would a trade body representing equipment manufacturers and
retailers be more concerned with selling GBP500 integrated digital TVs
rather than GBP50 set top boxes??? I wonder which they make the greater
profit on.

I think the Freeview view would be that they aren't in the business of
selling TVs - they are in the business of getting as many people as possible
to switch over.

Their sales pitch of 30+ rather than 5 channels (excluding the digital radio
services also carried), for a single, low, one-off cost, with 16:9 (and in
some cases improved picture quality over analogue OTA) and interactive TV
services, does still seem to be a big driving force. Whether HD versions of
the original 5 networks would have had the same driving force I don't
know... (I'd have liked it...)

Steve

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
Good points but in Berlin the lie is being put to your model.

Berlin does not have HDTV.

Nope - but neither does it have any analogue OTA terrestrial - they have an
entirely DVB-T based digital terrestrial system. They have chosen to run at
quite a low data rate on some of their muxes - presumably to make reception
very easy (I believe set-top aerials - or antennae - are quite popular in
Germany - they are less common in the UK where rooftop aerials pointing at a
single transmitter location for all services is more common)

They are running at 14.5 and 12.9 Mbs in VHF (one with a more robust FEC
than the other) - at low powers of around 5-10kW and 14.75Mbs at UHF at
10-120kW - but they have chosen 16QAM and 2/3 rather than 3/4 FEC so are
delivering an incredibly robust signal. They are also using the 8k variant -
so they can utilise single frequency working (allowing multiple fill-in
transmitters to run on the same channels to improve coverage)

You are right - the Berlin system is designed to deliver multiple SD rather
than single HD. I suspect they would be able to increase their data payload
if they were able to increase transmitter power, reduce the FEC and/or move
to 64QAM - but this would make the signal less robust and less easy to
receive. They have obviously aimed at ensuring low quality aerials work.


This was a city that had *two* analog color systems. I don't know if
they cleaned that up post-reunification, or used the DTV transition
to do that.

Nope - it was cleared up pretty quickly post-reunification I believe. AIUI
most receivers sold in Berlin prior to reunification (or very soon after)
were already SECAM/PAL dual standard (quite common in many European areas) -
so switching the East to PAL didn't need a huge replacement campaign in the
same way switching off analogue would do.

Analogue satellite has very high German penetration (it is one of the few
countries in Europe with a large analogue satellite operation AIUI) as the
reunification happened at around the same time as the first analogue
direct-to-home satellites launched (Astra 1 being the one favoured by
Germany) The German commercial and state networks (national and regional)
were all quickly carried on satellite - analogue PAL - and allowed for
out-of-region viewing, and I guess allowed quick roll out of these services
to the areas formerly in East Germany?

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Herve Benoit wrote:
Good points but in Berlin the lie is being put to your model.
Berlin does not have HDTV.
So what ? This has nothing to do with the merits of the modulation used.

This has everything to do with the purpose of alt.tv.tech.hdtv, to which
Bob Miller posted his stupid flame.

Berlin does not have HDTV, therefore Berlin's broadcast system is of no
interest to the membership of alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Bob Miller keeps on
babbling about Berlin on alt.tv.tech.hdtv in an attempt to claim that,
somehow, COFDM is superior to 8-VSB.

Most deployments of COFDM based digital TV have not been HDTV. Almost all
deployments of 8-VSB based digital TV have been HDTV; and most of the few
that were originally EDTV have since upgraded to HDTV.

This suggests that COFDM based digital TV is primarily of interest when
HDTV is not an issue. Probably, the impulse noise problem of COFDM will
forever condemn viewer in COFDM countries not to have HDTV.

Meanwhile, almost the entire USA has HDTV.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Herve Benoit wrote:

Good points but in Berlin the lie is being put to your model.

Berlin does not have HDTV.

So what ? This has nothing to do with the merits of the modulation used.


This has everything to do with the purpose of alt.tv.tech.hdtv, to which
Bob Miller posted his stupid flame.

Berlin does not have HDTV, therefore Berlin's broadcast system is of no
interest to the membership of alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Bob Miller keeps on
babbling about Berlin on alt.tv.tech.hdtv in an attempt to claim that,
somehow, COFDM is superior to 8-VSB.

Most deployments of COFDM based digital TV have not been HDTV. Almost
all deployments of 8-VSB based digital TV have been HDTV; and most of
the few that were originally EDTV have since upgraded to HDTV.

This suggests that COFDM based digital TV is primarily of interest when
HDTV is not an issue. Probably, the impulse noise problem of COFDM will
forever condemn viewer in COFDM countries not to have HDTV.

There is no impulse noise problem hampering the sales of DTV OTA
receivers in Japan or Australia and they are both doing HDTV with COFDM.
There are four countries that have signed on to both HDTV and 8-VSB.
Mexico is doing nothing while Canada is barely doing something. The only
countries doing something with 8-VSB are the US and S. Korea.

The US has a stagnant OTA transition while I am not sure what Korea is
doing but it is probably doing better.

In the COFDM corner we have Japan doing spectacularly well with only ONE
year into it with 80% of the county being covered by the end of 2006.
Australia is doing 13 or so times better than the US with sales now
spiking on what looks like a hockey puck graph. France will be doing HD
sometime next year. There will be more countries doing HD with COFDM in
the future which I think is highly unlikely with 8-VSB.

It is left to speculation just how many countries would be doing HD if
the US has adopted a COFDM modulation. It is my contention that many
more would be doing HD and that we all would be much further along if
the US had done the leadership thing instead of the political hack job
that it did.

Meanwhile, almost the entire USA has HDTV.

Meanwhile the US has most of its broadcasters doing the minimum required
to maintain their licenses while consumers seem to be under no such
mandate to buy mandated DTV sets. Quite a different way of putting it
than to say "almost the entire USA has HDTV" which is sadly pathetic.

Bob Miller

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Stephen Neal wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
[snip]

I think HD is great. What is there not to like about HD? What I hate
and the only thing I hate is the take over of the digital transition
in the US by the Consumer Electronics Association and its members.
Something that other countries were able to withstand. We were not.
Our government got bought.


Interestingly the UK Consumer Electronics industry has complained recently
that the publicity for Freeview (the generic name for DVB-T FTA in the UK -
though technically the Freeview consortium only 4 out of the 6 UK DVB-T
multiplexes) has concentrated on telling people they don't need to replace
their TV to upgrade to OTA digital TV and can instead purchase a low cost
external set-top box for around GBP50 (a conservative estimate, I think the
cheapest are around GPB30 these days) to receive all the channels with their
existing TV. (Most of the Freeview information is carried on the BBC -
which has 2 of the 6 UK multiplexes - and is commercial free - and keen for
as many viewers as possible to be able to receive their digital services.
Freeview is particularly good for the BBC as they have 1/3 of the broadcast
space, and many receivers aren't capable of supporting encryption...)

Hmmm - why would a trade body representing equipment manufacturers and
retailers be more concerned with selling GBP500 integrated digital TVs
rather than GBP50 set top boxes??? I wonder which they make the greater
profit on.

I think the Freeview view would be that they aren't in the business of
selling TVs - they are in the business of getting as many people as possible
to switch over.

Exactly right!!! In the US the FCC and our Congress should have been on
the consumer side fighting for what is best for consumers. They were
not. They were in the pockets of big business. The same can be said for
beef, cotton, sugar, drugs and oil. And the list goes on, broadcasting,
consumer electronics etc. If you add up all the money being fleeced from
the US taxpayer by our bribe based political system it may be as much as
30% after taxes.

Our Republican President talks of cutting taxes while he pays for his
spending by running the dollar down. The dollar has lost over 25% of its
value against the Euro in just the last two years. That is a tax on
every dollar you have ever made and every dollar ever saved by anyone in
the US.

The ugliest tax of all and a very pernicious form of unamericanism by
those who would use it consciously to cover thier policy mistakes.
Another form of the supposedly "easy way out" way of governing. This is
not the Republican party of Reagan and Bush Senior.

Bob Miller

Their sales pitch of 30+ rather than 5 channels (excluding the digital radio
services also carried), for a single, low, one-off cost, with 16:9 (and in
some cases improved picture quality over analogue OTA) and interactive TV
services, does still seem to be a big driving force. Whether HD versions of
the original 5 networks would have had the same driving force I don't
know... (I'd have liked it...)

The UK will have HD via satellite.

Steve