Japan HDTV

snipped
:
: I have no idea how old you are but I was around when both television
: broadcasting and what is now called cable began.



Yeah, Me to. I was in Jr. High when cable came to our small town in
West Texas. This was either 1965 or 1966. We were given "free cable
for life" because we allowed them to bury THE cable (from the tower)
down the ditch in front of our house. I wonder if the current owners
still get free cable, and if they do, if it is only the basic or the
"whole enchilada."



:
: Cable or CATV is an abbreviation for Community Access TeleVision
which began
: in areas that had no access to television. A television receiving
antenna
: was erected atop a hill or on a tower high enough to access distant
: television signals and distributed them to people throughout the
community.
: It was a way for a small town or rural community to receive
television
: broadcast stations which they otherwise would not be able to access.
: .

I remember that we (Dimmitt, Texas) were one of the very first CATV
systems in the nation. At that time OTA we could get 3 stations from
Amarillo. Cable added 3 more stations from Lubbock, so we had
basically 2 NBC, 2 CBS, and 2 ABC. No PBS or anything else. Cable
also added a "local weather channel" which consisted of a camera going
back and forth showing a thermometer, barometric pressure, wind speed
and direction and a 'white board' that had hand written public
announcements.

: In those days CATV was seen as a way to overcome the natural
limitations of
: OTA television broadcasting which is largely limited to
line-of-sight. I
: never heard anyone in those days describe it as a '"fix for the
reception
: problems of OTA" as if there was something wrong with OTA.



It did do just that. We were able to receive a "crystal clear"
picture, instead of the snowy picture that we had grown accustomed to.
But, that's all it did. Heck, it wasn't until the early to mid 70's
that TBS, WGN, KVTV (Ft. Worth's 'super station' of the era) were
added.
:
: However, as time went on CATV was seen as (and became) more than
merely a
: distribution system for OTA television programming. What transformed
CATV
: into today's cable television was the opportunities (not fixes) it
offered
: for additional programming which led to the wiring of larger towns
and
: cities with cable. In some areas it became a substitute for OTA
until the
: 'must carry' rule took effect.



HBO, The Weather Channel, CNN and ESPN came in pretty quick in the
late 70's and early 80's. Now were cookin', and the rest was (is)
history.



I moved to Ft. Worth from small town west Texas (1984), and got cable
and was disappointed. I began to keep a log of what I watched and
90% was available OTA here. I ditched cable and went down and bought
me a new antenna. I'm still using it today, but to pull in my DTV
along with my analog signal. I now have 5 TV's, and 2 OTA STB's for
DTV. 3 still receive an OTA analog signal. I have cable, and I plan
to dump it now that I can get HDTV, which looks much better than
digital cable! I was comparing signals the other day, cable has many,
many more artifacts, snow, and even has ghosts. My DTV signal does
not! Cable, in my mind, has going to have to 'shape-up' and
'get-with-it' or they're gonna have'ta go! What will I miss, Poker
games, reruns of series that have long past gone away. Ah, who cares
anyway?



: What all of this has to do with "Japan HDTV" is beyond me!
: --
: John in Sun Prairie



Russ

Stephen Neal ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
1. Secondary viewing and VCRs. Many houses that have "gone digital" have
only switched their primary (and in some cases secondary) receivers - but
not every bit of analogue reception kit (like a VCR or bedroom TV) There
are still few digital-TV ready VCRs (or set top boxes with two tuners
allowing a secondary independent VCR output)

Then, too, if existing STBs don't have a system of multiple timers that
turn the STB on and off and change channels, it's pretty useless as a
front-end for a VCR.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...istmasList.jpg
|
|

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Stephen Neal wrote:
Even with
16QAM the coverage from OTA DVB-T is still nowhere near as good as
analogue - but it won't be able to be ramped up significantly until analogue
IS switched off. This conundrum means that some very careful change-over
planning is required - as the fallout involved with the entire nation losing
analogue TV on a single change-over day could be massive.

As an American child says when someone says something obvious, "well,
duh!" :-)

A transition to digital is not the simple matter matter that some claim.

Germany has been able to do this far more quickly because far more people
use satellite and cable as their viewing sources - in the UK a huge number
of people use OTA as their primary source

In the US, the majority of people use satellite or cable as their primary
source.

Many people also have small portable TVs as a secondary source, e.g. to
watch a sports event while outside. All those little portable analog-only
battery-powered TVs will become useless after a digital transition. To
make things worse, they're still being sold.

The US has a vast territory compared to the UK, Germany, Japan, or even
Australia (especially when considering populated areas). Marketing of OTA
HDTV equipment didn't begin in earnest until this year.

Before any country can even think of switching off analog, the first thing
is to stop sales of analog-only TVs. To be sold after such-and-such date,
either it has a digital tuner, or digital+analog tuner, or no tuner. This
especially applies to small portables that won't have the STB option.

I think the massive popularity of OTA TV in the UK is significant. Cable TV
is a very minor player in the UK - with digital satellite (until very
recently) being seen as an exclusively pay-TV platform (where each secondary
receiver costs an additional $B#(B10-15 per month for subscription)

In the US, digital satellite is less expensive than comparable analog
cable services, and secondary satellite receivers add about $5/month (so
about 1/4 the cost in the UK).

Also, the most popular stations are only on cable and satellite. The most
popular TV news source is Fox News Channel (love or hate it, the numbers
are undeniable) with CNN a distant channel. Most of the popular
entertainment programming is also on cable/satellite only channels.

Many Americans only tune watch their OTA channels (generally through cable
or satellite) to get the local news, or perhaps a favorite program such as
The Tonight Show.

All of this means that OTA HDTV a rip-roaring success in the US; it's a
sudden oasis in a wasteland.

Americans aren't deciding whether or not to buy HDTV because of modulation
(8-VSB vs. COFDM); they're deciding based upon perceive benefit vs. cost.
Many people are waiting for their current analog equipment to fail and for
the prices of HDTV equipment to come down further.

Whilst the DVB-T system works well where it works - the coverage levels are
nowhere near to matching analogue.

But Psycho Bob says that COFDM completely takes care of ensuring
satisfactory coverage levels compared to analog. It's the magic Tesla
coils. Or is it the snake oil? No, it's the homeopathic remedies.

Psycho Bob also says that 8-VSB can't do the job, and that people like me
who live in areas with terrible multipath -- ghosting on *all* analog
channels -- can't possibly be telling the truth when they say they're
getting excellent OTA reception. This is because 8-VSB doesn't have the
Tesla coils/snake oil/homeopathic remedies.

However the UK broadcast landscape is pretty different to the US and
Germany - so may not be comparable.

"Well, duh!" :-)

Interesting differences for sure - but
I think we're past "We're better than you are" or "You're better than we
are" arguments these days - aren't we?

Indeed. That's the whole point.

Please understand: I'm not saying "DTV in the UK sucks" or at least not in
the context that you may think. For what the UK has set out as its goals
for a digital transition, it's an outstanding standard-definition digital
replacement for analog.

Rather, I am debunking Psycho Bob, who is saying "HDTV in the US sucks
compared to the UK." In fact, for what the US has set out as its goals
for a digital transition, the UK DTV system sucks as an HDTV replacement
for analog.

Put another way: it sucks for the same reason reason that a bicycle sucks
as a train. The comparison is unreasonable because the two have entirely
different goals. Yes, a bicycle is a terrible train; but a train is also
a terrible bicycle.

Europe has no OTA HDTV today. Japan and Australia only have it in a few
cities. The US has it nationwide.

Nobody is trying to criticize Europe, Japan, or Australia. Instead, we
debunk the mindless criticisms of digital TV in the US from Psycho Bob.

-- 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 in message
...

"Mark Crispin" wrote in message
ashington.edu...
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Stephen Neal wrote:
Yep - it'll be interesting to see if by 2012 - current proposed UK
analogue
switch-off

But, but....

According to Psycho Bob Miller, DTV in the UK is such a resounding
success. Why then is the analog switch-off date so late as 2012?

The problem is partially political, partially technical - mainly
political.

UK Digital TV - cable, satellite and terrestrial - has been really quite
popular. Freeview, the FTA non-pay-TV OTA system IS proving popular with
people who don't want to subscribe. However the analogue switch-off issue
is related to quite a few issues:

1. Secondary viewing and VCRs. Many houses that have "gone digital" have
only switched their primary (and in some cases secondary) receivers - but
not every bit of analogue reception kit (like a VCR or bedroom TV)
There
are still few digital-TV ready VCRs (or set top boxes with two tuners
allowing a secondary independent VCR output)

2. Coverage. This is a political chicken and egg situation. Because DVB-T
in the UK is fitting in around the existing 4+1 analogue networks (4 have
VERY high coverage levels, the 5th network was only ever a partial
coverage
network due to frequency overlaps with our European neighbours) the
transmissions are currently very low power compared to analogue. Even
with
16QAM the coverage from OTA DVB-T is still nowhere near as good as
analogue - but it won't be able to be ramped up significantly until
analogue
IS switched off. This conundrum means that some very careful change-over
planning is required - as the fallout involved with the entire nation
losing
analogue TV on a single change-over day could be massive.

The current government plan (we'll probably have had two more general
elections by 2012 though) is for the digital TV change-over to be phased
regionally - allowing a LOT of manpower and publicity to be concentrated
on
a smaller area to get the change-over message across. Last proposed start
date for the phased change-over was 2007

Germany has been able to do this far more quickly because far more people
use satellite and cable as their viewing sources - in the UK a huge number
of people use OTA as their primary source - usually with a roof-top aerial
(antenna), and it is almost universally the secondary viewing source
(though
second cable and satellite receivers are growing in popularity, and I know
people with cable and satellite for primary viewing are buying Freeview
boxes for their bedrooms - The advert free, public service, CBBC/CBeebies
in
a kids bedroom is a particular driving force etc.)

That's years after the most pessimistic guess for analog switch-off in
the
"failing" US.

I think the massive popularity of OTA TV in the UK is significant. Cable
TV
is a very minor player in the UK - with digital satellite (until very
recently) being seen as an exclusively pay-TV platform (where each
secondary
receiver costs an additional £10-15 per month for subscription) The UK
DVB-T FTA system really only began being marketed about 2 years ago (prior
to this it was also seen as a Pay-TV platform until the Pay-TV operation
fell apart) - but I think the UK are taking a "worst-case" view.

(Incidentally I don't think this timescale includes the Channel Islands -
who are not fully linked with the UK - though they have their own BBC and
ITV operations. They currently have no DVB-T stuff due to frequency
re-use
issues with France - they have analogue OTA and digital satellite)


Why not switch off analog next June? Psycho Bob says that all that is
needed to convert to digital is a $42 (presumably UKP 25) set top box
and
rabbit ears.

Whilst the DVB-T system works well where it works - the coverage levels
are
nowhere near to matching analogue. We have over 1100 analogue TV
transmitter sites in the UK to provide the very high levels of coverage
(99% of the UK population - might be 99.9% from memory) - even coming
close
to replicating this with DVB-T is going to be difficult - and I believe
there is a requirement to meet this as closely as possible - so the
timescale probably reflects this?


Could it be that Psycho Bob isn't telling the full story?!?


I think he is right to stress the popularity of Freeview in the UK- it IS
remarkably popular (Fastest selling consumer product in years - outpacing
DVD, the VCR etc. in uptake speed) - and the cost of receivers have made
it
a very attractive proposition. The DVB implementation in the UK is a
really
early version (we use 2k which isn't good for SFNs) - but the
implementation
has been consistent nationwide (which follows our national network, rather
than local TV, infrastructure) and the facilities provided are really
quite
an improvement over analogue (16:9, component digital pictures, digital
text
services, digital radio services). However the most compelling reason to
move to Freeview are the extra services provided by teh national
broadcasters - which are high quality when compared to some of the pay-TV
stuff. (I can't stress how much, anecdotally, the presence of two BBC
childrens channels - with no adverts and really high quality output - has
driven Freeview in the UK!)

However the UK broadcast landscape is pretty different to the US and
Germany - so may not be comparable. Interesting differences for sure -
but
I think we're past "We're better than you are" or "You're better than we
are" arguments these days - aren't we?

US drama is incredibly highly respected in the UK (The Sopranos, The West
Wing, ER, Six Feet Under etc.) - it may not rate through the roof but it
has
a loyal following. As a broadcast industry we just don't have the budgets
to
produce this kind of stuff. On the other hand we have a different kind of
TV schedule on some of our channels - with networks carrying more arts,
documentary, and our news bulletins on the main networks provide a much
greater amount of global news. (We also have mainstream networks who have
a
public service remit, rather than a commercial imperative - and no
commercials to interrupt the programmes!)

Steve


Sometimes government's can be over-cautious, as with the switch-off of 405
lines (1985) which virtually became extinct in the1970s anyway.

Even back then a major reason that we were lumbered with such an obsolete
system was just to appease a few thousand viewers who had purchased
television's in the 1930s, which by the time they tried to re-use them after
the war most probably went up in smoke anyway!

The same applies to the very early 2K DTT receivers, I would expect that
almost 99 per cent of all Freeview receivers are 8K compatible, but again to
appease a handful of people with outmoded crap we have to compromise the
system.

Why can't we be a bit more macho like other countries, and just for once and
tell them 'tough luck', especially as the cost of a probably vastly superior
receiver is probably not a million miles away from what many women expect to
pay for a visit to the hairdresser!