[opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:31:34 -0400
Clear as a bell and done so openly as to be an insult. There are people
who were friends before who still may not speak to one another as a result.
Bob Miller
John Willkie wrote:
>And, the only people who were confused were those who did not know the
>difference between an instrumentation unit and a commercial one. It was
>clearly sleight of hand by the "testers."
>
>John Willkie
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Golitsis" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:04 PM
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>
>
>
>
>>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:
