Gentlemen (John and Doug) I have been watching your sparring for several days. While my sympathies tend to lie with John, I think that you are both missing the point. A simple switch to COFDM, with or without an upgrade to Advanced Video Coding, would have NO IMPACT on the US Broadcast DTV transition. As I keep saying, the FIRST ORDER problem has nothing to do with technology; it has everything to do with the broadcast business model and the perceived need to maintain regulatory advantage over the competitors who are delivering broadcast content to 85% of the U.S. television audience. Doug's inquiries about antennas is a prime example of this. For some reason he thinks that the ability to receive signals from distant markets is important to television viewers. It is NOT. What is important is the ability to receiver the handful of channels that they are interested in, most of which are NOT available OTA. The next most important thing is that the source of this content be dirt simple to install and reliable. The masses are not going to put up fancy antenna configurations to pull duplicative signals from multiple markets, or simply to receive all of the stations in their market. Forget multipath, the entire idea of rotors and ugly rooftop antennas died a long time ago for most Americans. IF broadcasters ever decide they need to compete with the program distributors who are carrying their water today, then, AND ONLY THEN, will technology become an issue. At that point the following issues will become important: 1. Can the system support mobile and portable reception? This is the ONLY major competitive advantage for broadcasters. 2. Is the system easy to install with a simple omnidirectional antenna that can be located either inside the home, or outside (i.e. gutter mount). This configuration MUST be able to receive all local channels (distant channels are not relevant if local transmission facilities work properly); no rotors, electronically steerable antennas or antenna arrays allowed. 3. Is there a well defined "platform" with all of the services that consumers expect today from the other multi-channel services. a. A well designed, integrated program guide; b. Local caching to support PVR functions and (premium) cached VOD services; c. Back channel capabilities to support interactive and data broadcast services, and transactional services; d. Competition among vendors to drive innovation and lower costs to consumers. 4. Can the system compete with cable and DBS in terms of delivering targeted advertising based on viewer preferences, location, or demographic factors? When viewed from this perspective, it is clear that ATSC is simply a place holder, which will need to be replaced in order for broadcasters to field a competitive service. Regards Craig At 8:45 PM -0400 4/8/05, John Shutt wrote: >Dr. McDonald, > >Just because multipath is not a concern at the McDonald residence does not >mean it is not a problem. Ask Mr. Schubin his opinion of what concerns him >most. I have a receiver and a Silver Sensor, and the winning feature of >this antenna, also touted as the savior of ATSC, is it's ability to be very >directive, thus reducing the multipath load on the receiver. Now you want >an omnidirectional high gain outdoor antenna and say it's no problem? > >If you don't want to have to install a rotor, then mount two yagis on your >mast, each aimed at the market of interest, then sum them into one downlead. >Cable head ends do it all the time, and serious rural channel surfers have >done so for many years in NTSC. I'm sure you can do the same with ATSC. > >In the meantime, I will continue to press for a system that will >successfully deliver our quality programming to the highest percentage of >our off air community. > >Unfortunately, I am prohibited from sharing some of the emails and calls we >have received in the past year with complaints about receiving our digital >signal. So you will just have to take my word, or dismiss it out of hand, >that all is not well in the land of OTA DTV. At least not in Lansing, >Michigan. However, I shouldn't worry, because help is just around the >corner. The Cold Fusion Receiver should be on the market soon. > >John Shutt > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> The problem is not multipath, it is simple field strength >> in the null of a bi-directional figure eight pattern. > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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.