[opendtv] FW: Re: 30 ft requirement
- From: "Cliff Benham" <cliff.benham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:29:31 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Benham=20
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 2:01 PM
To: 'Manfredi, Albert E'
Subject: RE: [opendtv] Re: 30 ft requirement
-----Original Message-----
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 1:20 PM
To: Cliff Benham
Subject: RE: [opendtv] Re: 30 ft requirement
>Cliff,
>What on earth are you talking about?
The transition to digital. Craig asked why are we bothering with 40 =
year old [outdoor antenna]technology?
>First of all, this wasn't a discussion of DTT vs analog OTA TV at all. =
It was a discussion about US OTA TV vs Euro OTA TV.
Right, but Frank said which modulation doesn't matter, and the =
uniformity of field strength was much better in europe than over here. =
That might be important when your'e talking about indoor vs. outdoor =
antennas, yes?
>Secondly, what I said about indoor reception is plain and simple fact. =
It works sometimes, not always.
Gee, it seems like the goal of the 8VSB vs. COFDM demo was to show that =
we no longer need outdoor antennas, that little silver sensors taped to =
window sills would work perfectly everywhere, everytime. After all, the =
COFDM guy picked his antenna up and walked across the room with it and =
never lost the picture. How else would you interpret that act in a =
demonstration?
>Third, nothing about the CBS vs Echostar debacle changes anything about =
the laws of physics.
Of course not, I was just pointing out that when the programs go away, =
the phones ring off the hook until they come back.
>Fourth, no way are you going to be able to deploy the sort of =
infrastructure you'd need to guarantee indoor reception by >everyone in =
a major urban market *economically*.
Well, what the hell are we doing then? Killing off over the air TV in a =
very round about way? =20
>I'm only astounded that you think any of this is "wrong." Did you read =
what I wote? Or are you objecting to some other =
=20
>discussion?
>Bert
I'm objecting to what you and Craig have written about the digital =
transition. You both have idealized it into
a nice, neat little garden that just doesn't exist. What is really out =
there is a huge jungle which will require
lots of work to tame. So far, not much is being done in preparation for =
the analog shut off.
If it happened today, congress, the FCC, and the broadcasters would =
experiecne a very rude awakening at the hands of the American public.
=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Benham [mailto:cliff.benham@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:00 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 30 ft requirement
>=20
>=20
> Bert, what you say is just wrong!
>=20
> If you think the American public will put up with "indoor antennas =3D
> [that] *can* work, under
> the right circumstances" you weren't paying attention when=20
> CBS and Dish =3D
> disagreed on carriage.
>=20
> People were up in arms over it when they couldn't see their=20
> shows and =3D
> the problem got fixed in one day.
>=20
> Television is entertainment and information everyone just=20
> expects to be =3D
> there. If there is a problem,
> it's a huge problem for the broadcaster, and it better get=20
> fixed fast.=3D20
>=20
> If you think for a minute that iffy digital reception,=20
> pictures freezing =3D
> and disappearing all together=3D20
> will pass muster compared to what the public has now you are=20
> way out of =3D
> touch.
>=20
> I've been working in television stations for 40 years and I=20
> can assure =3D
> you digital television reception=3D20
> will have to improve a whole lot to equal the reliability of analog.
>=20
> People just will not put up with the current digital reception =3D
> UNreliability, and it doesn't matter what=3D20
> the cause is, they don't care. They expect it to be fixed and=20
> working =3D
> properly immediately.
>=20
> =3D20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:08 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 30 ft requirement
>=20
>=20
> Cliff Benham wrote:
>=20
> > If what you write is true and outdoor antennas are commonplace
> > in europe, then why the hell do we expect indoor types to work
> > over here?
>=20
> Because both here and there, indoor antennas *can* work, under
> the right circumstances. One problem with indoor antennas in
> European cities is that people tend to live in multi-unit
> apartment buildings, the newer ones of which are made of
> reinforced concrete. This makes it an iffy proposition to
> get ghost-free signals indoors.
>=20
> > If the US has much worse field strength uniformity than in
> > europe how can we possibly expect little indoor antennas to
> > work when they don't have a chance compared to an outdoor
> > type mounted on a 30 ft pipe?
> >
> > Magic?
>=20
> Cliff, we're talking about people making a big deal out of
> small differences. People in Europe who live as far as you
> do from an urban area will universally rely on outdoor yagis
> (log periodics, if you prefer).
>=20
> On the other hand, we use an indoor antenna very effectively
> for our upstairs system, for stations that are typically
> within about 15 miles away, or one as far as 31 miles distant.
>=20
> Things aren't nearly as different as some posts imply.
>=20
> Bert
> =3D20
> =3D20
> =20
> =20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [opendtv] FW: Re: 30 ft requirement
