[opendtv] Re: Fw: Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today

  • From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:53:08 -0400

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Frustrating, ain't it? But I practice what I preach. I'd
> tell him to wait as long as it takes. Or if he can't wait,
> then be ready to do some cherry picking.

Good advice.  It's what I tell my friends as well.  Most of them have gone 
to HD Digital cable in the 6 years I've been telling them to wait.  If we 
had switched to COFDM back when Sinclair first petitioned the FCC, I would 
have had much different advice, and the Digital Transition would be in a 
completely different place.

> I keep coming back to the same thing, though. The receivers
> we would have here would need VHF as well as UHF, would need
> to accommodate US frequency bands, would (hopefully) all
> need to be HD-reception compatible. So they aren't the same
> boxes sold in the UK.

No they aren't.  But with the exception of VHF, they are almost identical to 
the boxes sold in Australia.

> They also need to work in environments
> where there might be close by, strong adjacent stations etc
> etc, which create problems for COFDM just like any other
> type of receiver. All that stuff we went through recently,
> that had NOTHING to do with modulation type.

That was a problem with the Modulation Monitor used in the MSTV tests. That 
was not a problem with the Nokia receiver used by Sinclair in 1999, and it 
was not a problem with the four different types of receivers Bob Miller 
(www.viacel.com/bob.wmv) used in New York City during his testing.  Ignore 
the evidence, Bert.  Manhattan is about as saturated an RF environment as 
they come, I'd wager.

> So what makes you think that any manufacturer would be any
> more willing to produce excellent examples of those boxes,
> ones that work in Mark Schubin's apartment, without a date
> certain? why wouldn't they just produce the cheapest possible
> box meant only to meet some mandate?

Because they make them for the 7 million home Australian market, and there 
is no reason not to make them for the 104 million home US market, especially 
when the tooling is so similar to what they already use.

> The techniques that work well were first devised by Linx in
> 2002. The only excuse for these good receivers not to be
> available is simple lack of interest from OEMs. Lack of
> interest doesn't depend on modulation type, except among
> evangelists.

Lack of interest, or the understanding that all the magic isn't in the 
chipset but in a sophisticated RF section that would fit right in with mil 
spec gear, but is way out of the league of mass produced consumer goods?


You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: