robmx
01-26-2003, 01:44 PM
> Randy Sweeney wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> "Or is it because those who want COFDM are virtually unanimous in their disdain for HDTV and instead want to use the bandwidth for paid mobile data services?"
>
> Exactly.
>
> By the way, the administrators of the AVS forum revealed that Bob Miller was using pseudonyms to create other forum "members" who "agreed" with his pathetic tirades. (Just one of the reasons why he was thrown off the forum).
>
> He has zero interest in HDTV, yet he continues to post in an HDTV forum. It's nothing but harassment.
Bob Miller wrote:
I think that HDTV is great and will do well on cable and satellite. In fact it will do well on the TV spectrum also after 8-VSB fails and Congress gets to auction off all the free OTA spectrum they want for other uses and other modulations. It just might no be free. And it is after the consolidation of whatever channels do not get auctioned to the big boys.
It is only the decrepit modualtion that currently is mandated for broadcast free OTA DTV that is a problem. 8-VSB only exist because of political corruption. It is killing free OTA broadcasting. It is in the interest of Congress, cable and satellite that free OTA go away. In fact broadcasters today have little interest in OTA broadcasting. Their only interest is the political clout that it has brought them. They have and are using this clout to ensure that their MUST CARRY rights are preserved and expanded.
They are also interested in a payday for abandoning their spectrum. If they could get MUST CARRY and at the same time turn off their transmitters and get a check for doing it they would in a second.
Where does that leave us? There is no one to left whose interest is served by maintaining free OTA broadcasting except the 5 to 13% of viewers (pick one) that still rely on OTA free TV. Consider the demographics of this group. How much clout do they have?
As to AVSFORUM they censor almost every discussion. They eliminate post that would offend or that do not agree with interest of their corporate sponsors. My post there in the past, while sometimes caustic, were not personal but those who attacked me many times were. It was easier to kill the messenger. I have re-incarnated myself there a number of times. At the moment I have one presence there that they know of and censor and two of which they have no clue. I have to be more subtle with those post.
Again many who disagree with me or who work or have interest in 8-VSB may try to suggest that my arguments are about HDTV or because I am interested in using the TV spectrum for datacasting at the expense of HDTV. Couldn't be further from the truth. I am interested in datacasting. That is what broadcasting digitally is, datacasting. How efficient you do it and what content you deliver are the only questions remaining. HDTV is a resolution not a technology. It is one of many resolutions. Datacasting can deliver HDTV at 1080i or even a higher resolution.
My interest in datacasting would dictate that I am in favor of auctioning off all the TV spectrum at low cost such as happened last August in Auction #44. There is no way that we could get spectrum from the current broadcasters to do datacasting with COFDM (if allowed) at anywhere near the prices that were paid in Auction #44. Two channels, 54 and 59 or 12 MHz were sold in that auction for the cities of Philadelphia, New York, Boston, half of NJ for a total price of $6.5 million dollars.
A New York broadcaster would charge us that for one year using part of their bandwidth for the use of one of their channels. So it would appear that in my arguments here I am arguing against my own self interest. Not really because my arguments here will not prevail. The present course will continue. The Linx technology improves 8-VSB recepton in a fixed mode and guarantees that the DTV transition will remain stagnant for the next 4 years of "consolidation". This leaves mobile/portable DTV and datacasting a monopoly on cheap spectrum for the same period. That could/will be us.
I argue here only because of the utter stupidity of the present course and to warn those who would listen as to what is actually happening and because I believe that free OTA TV should be preserved for our political health if nothing else.
The current battle over how the OTA spectrum is used has everything to do with broadcasters trying to hang onto the NTSC legasy system as long as possible. After all it is where they make money and it is all they know. It has little to do with HDTV. It has even less to do with broadcasting. It has almost nothing to do with the modulation.
After the current political battles are fought and won or lost by the broadcasters you will see what the reality is. The winners will use whatever modulation they want and the FCC will put their stamp of approval on it in a heartbeat. IT WILL NOT BE 8-VSB. 8-VSB is only a pawn in the backroom dealing that has been ongoing since 1992. 8-VSB may be seen as usefull in killing the market value of smaller broadcast stations so the they can be "consolidated". I have heard that most smaller stations are for sale but the buyers are in no hurry. The price is still dropping and the FCC still has to change the rules on ownership.
Once the rules are in place at the FCC the consolidation can take place and after all the sqealing and slaughter is complete the winners will ask the FCC for a change of modulation. There will be little sleep lost and less discussion than you can imagine over the fate of early adopters and thier equipment investments.
The big push at the monent is to change the ownership rules. If you watch Chairman Powell do the bidding of his controllers on CNN and C-Span last week it is apparent. The sqealing from the small fry was painfull to hear as people called in and the Chairman was in some pain but he will not deviate and the consolidation will take place.
Maybe the above will help explain why there is little advertising, little manufacturing and little promotion of OTA receivers. Those in the know are very aware of what is going on. Changes are brewing. The mandate for receivers in every TV will not stand and what modulation will be used will be determined in a few years after consolidtion.
What will it look like? Look at radio and Clear channel. That was the opening act. That was practice.
Bob Miller
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@eathlink.net> wrote in message news:moJY9.3709$U27.340622@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message news:uqydnYWZwMRoiq6jXTWc3Q@comcast.com...
> > > > Why was COFDM not allowed?
> > >
> > > Could it be that, unlike Europe, the US doesn't have single frequency broadcast networks for which COFDM is optimized and instead has powerful adjacent channels in geographically close markets, a configuration where COFDM was found to be problematic?
> >
> > COFDM enables Single Frequency Networks. You don't have to have them, they just make sense. Europe didn't have SFN's before COFDM either. COFDM is not problematic in the US. In fact it offers a lot of advantages.
> > >
> > > Or is it because multiple modulation schema would increase the cost of receivers?
> >
> > People could opt for the COFDM receiver which is a lot less than an 8-VSB receiver. Adding COFDM to the expensive 8-VSB receiver would add little cost. Wouldn't matter becauses if COFDM was allowed 8-VSB would immediately dissapear.
> > >
> > > Or is it because the goal of maximum service television is to provide service in outlying fringe areas, another issue with COFDM?
> >
> > No issue. We tested COFDM with a transmitter that allowed us to switch from COFDM to 8-VSB at the touch of a button on the CN Tower in Toronto. We invited anyone to bring any 8-VSB receiver and pick any spot that they could receive 8-VSB at. We said that we would then drive around that spot while receiving COFDM mobile. We had no takers.
> > >
> > > Or is it because those who want COFDM are virtually unanimous in their disdain for HDTV and instead want to use the bandwidth for paid mobile data services?
> >
> > No reason to distain HDTV. I personally think it is great. Australia is using COFDM to broadcast HDTV nationwide and they are the only country in the world that has MANDATED COFDM. The US only ask broadcasters to deliver a single program that equals the quality of NTSC. The UK is using COFDM to deliver a service called FREEVIEW. 30 channels of DTV programming and 10 digital radio programs all FREE. Same goes in Berlin Germany where they
> > offer 30 and 10 free also. There is no pay service using COFDM that I know of.
> >
> > In the US on the other hand the broadcaster is allowed to do anything they want with their 8-VSB broadcast after they have delivered that one NTSC quality program. They all plan on doing just that, subscriptions services.
> > Their lobbyist spend lots of money and time in DC asking for must carry of multicasting on cable. Why would that be their top priority I wonder if they did not want to multicast video and data. 8-VSB does nothing to stop that except that is does not work very well at anything.
> > >
> > > So many possible reasons.
> >
> > No reason that I know of accept to keep the corrupt monopolistic extra $5.40 in royalties going to Zenith and their corporate owner in S.Korea.
> >
> > Bob Miller
> "Or is it because those who want COFDM are virtually unanimous in their disdain for HDTV and instead want to use the bandwidth for paid mobile data services?"
>
> Exactly.
>
> By the way, the administrators of the AVS forum revealed that Bob Miller was using pseudonyms to create other forum "members" who "agreed" with his pathetic tirades. (Just one of the reasons why he was thrown off the forum).
>
> He has zero interest in HDTV, yet he continues to post in an HDTV forum. It's nothing but harassment.
Bob Miller wrote:
I think that HDTV is great and will do well on cable and satellite. In fact it will do well on the TV spectrum also after 8-VSB fails and Congress gets to auction off all the free OTA spectrum they want for other uses and other modulations. It just might no be free. And it is after the consolidation of whatever channels do not get auctioned to the big boys.
It is only the decrepit modualtion that currently is mandated for broadcast free OTA DTV that is a problem. 8-VSB only exist because of political corruption. It is killing free OTA broadcasting. It is in the interest of Congress, cable and satellite that free OTA go away. In fact broadcasters today have little interest in OTA broadcasting. Their only interest is the political clout that it has brought them. They have and are using this clout to ensure that their MUST CARRY rights are preserved and expanded.
They are also interested in a payday for abandoning their spectrum. If they could get MUST CARRY and at the same time turn off their transmitters and get a check for doing it they would in a second.
Where does that leave us? There is no one to left whose interest is served by maintaining free OTA broadcasting except the 5 to 13% of viewers (pick one) that still rely on OTA free TV. Consider the demographics of this group. How much clout do they have?
As to AVSFORUM they censor almost every discussion. They eliminate post that would offend or that do not agree with interest of their corporate sponsors. My post there in the past, while sometimes caustic, were not personal but those who attacked me many times were. It was easier to kill the messenger. I have re-incarnated myself there a number of times. At the moment I have one presence there that they know of and censor and two of which they have no clue. I have to be more subtle with those post.
Again many who disagree with me or who work or have interest in 8-VSB may try to suggest that my arguments are about HDTV or because I am interested in using the TV spectrum for datacasting at the expense of HDTV. Couldn't be further from the truth. I am interested in datacasting. That is what broadcasting digitally is, datacasting. How efficient you do it and what content you deliver are the only questions remaining. HDTV is a resolution not a technology. It is one of many resolutions. Datacasting can deliver HDTV at 1080i or even a higher resolution.
My interest in datacasting would dictate that I am in favor of auctioning off all the TV spectrum at low cost such as happened last August in Auction #44. There is no way that we could get spectrum from the current broadcasters to do datacasting with COFDM (if allowed) at anywhere near the prices that were paid in Auction #44. Two channels, 54 and 59 or 12 MHz were sold in that auction for the cities of Philadelphia, New York, Boston, half of NJ for a total price of $6.5 million dollars.
A New York broadcaster would charge us that for one year using part of their bandwidth for the use of one of their channels. So it would appear that in my arguments here I am arguing against my own self interest. Not really because my arguments here will not prevail. The present course will continue. The Linx technology improves 8-VSB recepton in a fixed mode and guarantees that the DTV transition will remain stagnant for the next 4 years of "consolidation". This leaves mobile/portable DTV and datacasting a monopoly on cheap spectrum for the same period. That could/will be us.
I argue here only because of the utter stupidity of the present course and to warn those who would listen as to what is actually happening and because I believe that free OTA TV should be preserved for our political health if nothing else.
The current battle over how the OTA spectrum is used has everything to do with broadcasters trying to hang onto the NTSC legasy system as long as possible. After all it is where they make money and it is all they know. It has little to do with HDTV. It has even less to do with broadcasting. It has almost nothing to do with the modulation.
After the current political battles are fought and won or lost by the broadcasters you will see what the reality is. The winners will use whatever modulation they want and the FCC will put their stamp of approval on it in a heartbeat. IT WILL NOT BE 8-VSB. 8-VSB is only a pawn in the backroom dealing that has been ongoing since 1992. 8-VSB may be seen as usefull in killing the market value of smaller broadcast stations so the they can be "consolidated". I have heard that most smaller stations are for sale but the buyers are in no hurry. The price is still dropping and the FCC still has to change the rules on ownership.
Once the rules are in place at the FCC the consolidation can take place and after all the sqealing and slaughter is complete the winners will ask the FCC for a change of modulation. There will be little sleep lost and less discussion than you can imagine over the fate of early adopters and thier equipment investments.
The big push at the monent is to change the ownership rules. If you watch Chairman Powell do the bidding of his controllers on CNN and C-Span last week it is apparent. The sqealing from the small fry was painfull to hear as people called in and the Chairman was in some pain but he will not deviate and the consolidation will take place.
Maybe the above will help explain why there is little advertising, little manufacturing and little promotion of OTA receivers. Those in the know are very aware of what is going on. Changes are brewing. The mandate for receivers in every TV will not stand and what modulation will be used will be determined in a few years after consolidtion.
What will it look like? Look at radio and Clear channel. That was the opening act. That was practice.
Bob Miller
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@eathlink.net> wrote in message news:moJY9.3709$U27.340622@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message news:uqydnYWZwMRoiq6jXTWc3Q@comcast.com...
> > > > Why was COFDM not allowed?
> > >
> > > Could it be that, unlike Europe, the US doesn't have single frequency broadcast networks for which COFDM is optimized and instead has powerful adjacent channels in geographically close markets, a configuration where COFDM was found to be problematic?
> >
> > COFDM enables Single Frequency Networks. You don't have to have them, they just make sense. Europe didn't have SFN's before COFDM either. COFDM is not problematic in the US. In fact it offers a lot of advantages.
> > >
> > > Or is it because multiple modulation schema would increase the cost of receivers?
> >
> > People could opt for the COFDM receiver which is a lot less than an 8-VSB receiver. Adding COFDM to the expensive 8-VSB receiver would add little cost. Wouldn't matter becauses if COFDM was allowed 8-VSB would immediately dissapear.
> > >
> > > Or is it because the goal of maximum service television is to provide service in outlying fringe areas, another issue with COFDM?
> >
> > No issue. We tested COFDM with a transmitter that allowed us to switch from COFDM to 8-VSB at the touch of a button on the CN Tower in Toronto. We invited anyone to bring any 8-VSB receiver and pick any spot that they could receive 8-VSB at. We said that we would then drive around that spot while receiving COFDM mobile. We had no takers.
> > >
> > > Or is it because those who want COFDM are virtually unanimous in their disdain for HDTV and instead want to use the bandwidth for paid mobile data services?
> >
> > No reason to distain HDTV. I personally think it is great. Australia is using COFDM to broadcast HDTV nationwide and they are the only country in the world that has MANDATED COFDM. The US only ask broadcasters to deliver a single program that equals the quality of NTSC. The UK is using COFDM to deliver a service called FREEVIEW. 30 channels of DTV programming and 10 digital radio programs all FREE. Same goes in Berlin Germany where they
> > offer 30 and 10 free also. There is no pay service using COFDM that I know of.
> >
> > In the US on the other hand the broadcaster is allowed to do anything they want with their 8-VSB broadcast after they have delivered that one NTSC quality program. They all plan on doing just that, subscriptions services.
> > Their lobbyist spend lots of money and time in DC asking for must carry of multicasting on cable. Why would that be their top priority I wonder if they did not want to multicast video and data. 8-VSB does nothing to stop that except that is does not work very well at anything.
> > >
> > > So many possible reasons.
> >
> > No reason that I know of accept to keep the corrupt monopolistic extra $5.40 in royalties going to Zenith and their corporate owner in S.Korea.
> >
> > Bob Miller
