[opendtv] Re: Louisiana governor blasts faulty wireless networks
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:42:03 -0400
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>
>
>>Neith Bob nor I have advocated the use of large
>>numbers of 100W transmitters. I believe that Bob
>>has done some tests with transmitters at this power.
>>
>>
>
>Craig, unfortunately you aren't following the thread.
>
>What I was referring to was specific:
>
>
>
>>From: Bob Miller
>>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:38:58 -0400
>>
>>10 or so solid state 100 W transmitters around the
>>Big Easy with battery and backup generators would
>>have ensured continuous reception for most.
>>
>>
>
>
>
I was saying that this would work not that it is the best plan for New
Orleans. From what we have tested 10 100 W transmitters would cover the
area very well on moderatly high towers say 400 ft up.. Is it the best
solution? I am sure it isn't.
>And the same applies to this:
>
>
>
>>>However, a mere 30 miles away, there's another
>>>large stick, on a different set of frequencies,
>>>because that's too far to be included in the
>>>Paris SFN, and the Paris signal is getting too
>>>weak by then. So unless you go to the trouble of
>>>synchronizing transmitters, you need translators.
>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps they are on a different set of frequencies
>>because they are serving a different market? Perhaps
>>they do not want to duplicate the content on the
>>Paris channels?
>>
>>
>
>Again, this is specific. I'm not basing these
>arguments on dogma or preconceived notions. The
>multiplexes carry the same programs, and are on
>different frequencies for the reasons I explained.
>The ads are national ads.
>
>The fotunate thing about these real-world examples
>of DTT deployments is that they debunk all of the
>silly techno-hype that had been perpetrated on the
>innocent in the past.
>
>Again, the creation of large area SFNs is possible
>in either DTT system, and is subject to the same
>complexities for good implementation. A good, low
>risk and low cost compromise is use of big sticks
>supplemented by gap fillers, or otherwise smaller
>sticks (even if you call these "SFNs.") Not unlike
>what they have done in Paris, by the way.
>
>The reality is that the spectrum savings available
>from SFNs was overly hyped. How? By people talking
>vague generalities instead of seeing exactly how
>their ideas translated to real world conditions.
>For example, people vaguely referring to national
>networks in Europe, suggesting country-wide SFNs.
>
>You agree that huge SFNs are not contemplated, even
>if you don't accept that this is for more than
>market size reasons. And yet you don't take that
>the additional step to see what it does to the
>spectrum-saving mantra.
>
>Bert
>
>
I believe that Qualcomm's plan include a country wide SFN. And I don't
think that the spectrum savings of SFNs has been over hyped. There are
many variable which include what are you trying to accomplish. Mobile
reception requires large footprints and SFNs IMO.
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:
