[opendtv] Re: 20050627 Mark's Monday Memo
- From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:28:36 -0700
Democrats, of course, are not partial. (I've been a Democrat for most of my
voting life, and never have been a republican).
Sinclair is a Republican. Could you explain how a corporate entity could be
a Republican? To be a member of a party, one has to be an elector. Just
how did Sinclair achieve the status of being a registered voter?
How do you face yourself in the morning? Just ignore everything that you
said before ?
John Willkie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 7:19 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20050627 Mark's Monday Memo
> And no, Sinclair is not impartial, they are a business. You can't get
> more partial than that unless you are Republican and I think that
> Sinclair is also Republican.
>
> Bob Miller
>
> BTW I voted for Bush Senior both times and Ronald both times but am a
> registered Democrat (required in NYC) like our mayor Bloomberg, consider
> myself independent and can't stand our current Cowboy in Chief.
>
> 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: