[opendtv] Re: 20050627 Mark's Monday Memo
- From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:25:32 -0700
thanks, bob. I needed a good laugh in the morning.
So, not only are your -- now enemies -- at the CRC whores, they're the
cheapest kind, ones diverted by cheap prizes and transitory 'honors.'. What
even more interesting is that you seem to think that CEA could influence CRC
to support 8-VSB in some high-faluting scenario that had to have been wholly
hatched in a fervent mind on Roosevelt Island.
You continue on an illogical, and impossible to achieve quest: somebody to
tell you that it's safe for you to enter the marketplace. It's always
somebody else's fault, and you look for bigger an bigger boogeymen. Maybe
Congress will save you? Why not the impartial -- oh, yeah, they aren't --
FCC? If only John Kerry wins, this nightmare will be over. (Any port in a
storm.)
I would be ashamed to even think such thoughts. To offer them repeatedly is
something for shrinks to contemplate.
John Willkie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 7:11 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20050627 Mark's Monday Memo
> By definition organizations like the NAB and MSTV are "partial". It is
> part of their DNA. Organizations like the CRC should have impartiality
> DNA but I believe they have been compromised by medals bestowed on some
> of their apparatchiks by such "partial" organizations as the CEA.
>
> It is nice to know, however, that a "partial" by DNA CEA has been able
> to set that partiality aside when extracting and publishing "data" on
> the state of digital in the US TV market.
>
> In a PR release yesterday by CEA Vice President, Technology Policy,
> Michael Petricone...
>
> "We are glad to provide CEA's complete survey documents and offer to
> further analyze the data in any way that assists Congress in developing
> proposals to minimize viewer impact. We remain committed to our lengthy
> history of providing accurate and sound data to policymakers, the
> technology industry and the financial community."
>
> http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10779
>
> So we should all rely reverently on the data from the CEA and their
> patsies at the CRC?
>
> Bob Miller
>
> John Willkie wrote:
>
> >could you name a single organization that ever issued a document or
> >documents that you do not agree with that you will still label as
impartial?
> >So far, your list of partial organizations is NAB, MSTV and now the CRC.
Is
> >Sinclair impartial?
> >
> >John Willkie
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:27 AM
> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20050627 Mark's Monday Memo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't think the CRC is an impartial organization. They have NO
> >>credibility with me. I would not ask them the time of day.
> >>
> >>In fact the only credible test if you are going to make an investment is
> >>to test yourself and the test we have done so far says that COFDM works
> >>and has since we first tested it and 8-VSB has not and still does not
> >>accept maybe with the latest receivers if we are willing to restrict our
> >>venture to fixed receivers that will cost more than necessary and come
> >>from a restricted list of manufacturers who themselves are less than
> >>enthusiastic about the modulation and our prospects as customers using
it.
> >>
> >>Not real exciting.
> >>
> >>You can continue twisting this anyway you want but the reality is that
> >>in the US few entities of any kind have shown ANY interest in investing
> >>in 8-VSB at any level unless force, cajoled or MANDATED and that ONE of
> >>those few, ourselves, is possibly the BIGGEST critic of the modulation
> >>8-VSB.
> >>
> >>The CEA which is maybe one of the biggest proponents of 8-VSB is also on
> >>record as saying that OTA broadcasting is and should die.
> >>
> >>Bob Miller.
> >>
> >>Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bob Miller wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If we had an 8-VSB receiver as good as a 1999 COFDM
> >>>>receiver I would not be in doubt about a venture
> >>>>with the 5th gen receivers we have tested so far
> >>>>and would not be up late tonight talking to the Far
> >>>>East about the latest.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Context is everything.
> >>>
> >>>First of all, in urban canyon reception, COFDM is doing
> >>>exactly what it was designed to do. That's where it's
> >>>*supposed* to shine. So if it does, it should not come
> >>>as a great surprise.
> >>>
> >>>But even in spite of that, real tests by the CRC, an
> >>>impartial organization, provided this result in their
> >>>September 2003 article in the IEEE Transactions on
> >>>Broadcasting:
> >>>
> >>>"As shown in Fig. 4, the DVB-T receiver could handle
> >>>pre and post ghosts over a wider range. It had a window
> >>>of 74 us working within a delay range of -74 to +74 us,
> >>>and capable of resolving zero dB ghost for a signal
> >>>having a high C/N of 31 dB, and less than 1 dB ghost
> >>>for a signal with a C/N of 22 dB."
> >>>
> >>>By comparison, the CRC test on both the LG and the
> >>>previous Linx receivers showed that two 0 dB echoes,
> >>>i.e. three equal strength symbols arriving 1 usec
> >>>apart, as in Brazil E, could successfully be decoded
> >>>with a C/N of only 25 dB. And less stressful profiles
> >>>required C/N margins in ranges well below 20 dB.
> >>>
> >>>So this shows a mixed bag. The 8-VSB receivers still
> >>>cannot match the echo tolerance range of COFDM with
> >>>GI set to 1/16 (50 uS for LG, 74 uS for COFDM), but
> >>>they can beat your 1999 COFDM performance for the
> >>>very difficult Brazil E profile handily, with 6 dB of
> >>>extra margin.
> >>>
> >>>This is what I'm getting at. Depending on specific
> >>>surroundings, your sweeping assessment might apply or
> >>>not. In GENERAL, these tests show what most people
> >>>already know: COFDM is great in areas of high
> >>>multipath. It is very robust. But it is best used
> >>>where signal strength is not a big issue. That's why
> >>>it's good for applications like WiFi. If signal
> >>>strength is an issue, then even in *some* high
> >>>multipath environments, the new 8-VSB receivers might
> >>>have an edge. Unless you do the careful tests,
> >>>sweeping generalizations are not credible.
> >>>
> >>>Bert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
