[opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:20:27 -0400
Also should mention that there were two reasons for complacency by the
COFDM side as the MSTV test went forward. New to the broadcast industry
I was persuaded against my better senses as it turned out that those
conducting the test were professional engineers interested in the truth
first. I was assured by Mark Aitken and Gary Chapman and the voice of
Victor Tawil that all would be above board even though done in secret.
And there was the SECOND PHASE of testing. The first phase had been
stacked as much as possible in 8-VSB's favor. We knew that COFDM would
easily win in the first phase and would crush 8-VSB in the second phase.
A phase that never took place because the first phase was "SO
CONCLUSIVE" and they didn't want to waste any more time.
We have now wasted another five years or 10% of the life of NTSC.
And let's not forget that "WAIT" has been the operative word of 8-VSB
for eight years.
Bob Miller
John Golitsis wrote:
>And just so the full story is re-told, that "receiver" was offered by the
>manufacturer as one that would fit the needs of the testing. We all read
>the official request, and the official reply, and the manufacturer failed to
>make any mention at all of it's need for front end filtering. Nor did
>Sinclair who was in possession of the receiver before it was passed on to
>the NAB.
>
>Of course, AFTER the testing was completed is when this all came up. How
>bloody convenient.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:37 PM
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>
>
>
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The very bad numbers for 8-VSB did arrive. But COFDM
>>>had been sabotaged
>>>
>>>
>>>That is what happened.
>>>
>>>
>>And that's the truth....I was there and observed and objected, as did
>>others, but to no avail. Those who were not involved can certainly
>>express opinions but that's what they remain; unsubtantiated opinions
>>based upon a clearly faulty document - politically influenced technical
>>gerrymandering at it's worst. The attitude was, "we've reached our
>>desired conclusion, don't confuse it with fact"!
>>
>>Note:
>>For those who were not involved in the previous testing discussions on
>>this list; the problem with the selected COFDM receiver was that it's RF
>>system was completey devoid of the very criritical Selectivity feature and
>>this oversight doomed it to failure. This COFDM device was actually a test
>>receiver/monitor that required external filtering to provide required
>>selectivity when used in non controlled RF environments.
>>In fact, that same model receiver was tested by a third party, soon
>>after original testing and at the same locations as the original tests.
>>Simply adding a relatively wide banpass filter to the RF input caused
>>it to perform as expected, beating the 8VSB receiver's performance
>>hands down.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:29 PM
>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>What happened was that after the hearing in the summer of 2000 where
>>>Congress was considering changes to the DTV transition in a biannual
>>>review they entertained the notion that we could allow COFDM or switch
>>>to COFDM. It was left open with the prospect of a test of the two
>>>modulations which would help Congress and the FCC to make up their minds.
>>>
>>>That test was fraudulent.
>>>
>>>That test was used to kill any hope for COFDM. While we waited for test
>>>results we had every reason to believe that COFDM would be allowed based
>>>on what we knew would be very good numbers for COFDM and very bad
>>>numbers of 8-VSB. The very bad numbers for 8-VSB did arrive. But COFDM
>>>had been sabotaged.
>>>
>>>That is what happened.
>>>
>>>Bob Miller
>>>
>>>John Willkie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, what happened? Oh, others weren't able to get Congress and the FCC
>>>>to
>>>>change laws and the rules? That was in 1999. Or, are you alluding to
>>>>9/11?
>>>>
>>>>John Willkie
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:30 PM
>>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the difference in cost for using the Equator chip at the time
>>>>>would have been no more than $50 which would have been a very good deal
>>>>>looking back. We fully expected to be ordering such receivers by early
>>>>>spring of 2001 but of course you know what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>John Shutt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, a closed universe subscription service where you fund the STBs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>And
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>you had a near future codec in the pipeline. I am not familiar with
>>>>>>Equator, but could their 2000 chipset support today's H.264?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John.
>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>To
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The 1999 Nokia receiver was 8K. And we were only looking to use the
>>>>>>>ON2
>>>>>>>Codec at the time. We were also talking to Equator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bob Miller
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
