[opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog Equipment

  • From: "Bob Miller" <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:15:02 -0500

Just want to point out that before we tested the LG prototype at Mark's
apartment we worked with it in the morning at the AT&T building on the 25th
floor with clear line of sight to the Empire State Building, nothing but
air. We had the antenna in front of an open window on a table next to the
receiver and were able to disrupt reception by walking in front of the
antenna or standing at two points on either side of the antenna. The two LG
engineers who were responsible for the development of that prototype were
present and very perplexed but could do nothing to remedy the situation.

I agree with Mark's statement about the experience in his apartment later.

Remember at the time I desperately wanted this to work. But the reality was
that it was not good enough and we couldn't get anyone to make them anyway.
I talked to Hisense and three different Korean companies about making them
and still have a couple of prototypes they shipped me built out of
plexiglass.

50 calls, many of them conference calls with LG on the phone, did nothing.
No one could match the prototype.

The prototype was a different design. It did not have the chips all in the
can as did the later attempts to match it did as I remember.

8-VSB is now history for me.

Bob Miller



On Nov 28, 2007 9:41 AM, Mark Schubin <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As the person whose name is often invoked here with regard to 8-VSB
> reception, I would like to reiterate two things:
>
> 1.  The LG prototype tested in my Manhattan apartment performed
> flawlessly with rabbit ears atop my set.  I, therefore, no longer have
> any concern about the technology of 8-VSB.
>
> 2.  No receiver brought to my apartment before or since that
> LG-prototype, including receivers using the same demod chip, has worked
> in my apartment with a set-top antenna.  If there are better receivers
> on the market, no one has yet proved it in my apartment.
>
> TTFN,
> Mark
>
> Allen Le Roy Limberg wrote:
> > I had a Samsung prototype 8VSB receiver in our Washington, DC M Street
> > patent law office in 2000.  As long as someone did not walk behind the
> coat
> > hanger antenna reception was fine from the PBS station in Shirleyville.
>  The
> > signal was not received line-of-sight, but as principal echo from the
> > building across a small park.  I  invited Craig Tanner and Lynn Claudy
> over
> > to see it at the time that almost everyone was gloomy about the
> prospects of
> > OTA 8VSB ever being receivable in DC.
> >
> > The current off-the-shelf equipment is superior to that original
> prototype
> > receiver, which I believe was the first to use digital synchrodyne
> > demodulation.
> >
> > Al
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:38 PM
> > Subject: [opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog
> Equipment
> >
> >
> >
> >> Are we now assuming ATSC STB's or TV's will work indoors in urban
> >> canyons?  I didn't know that was really proven yet with off the shelf
> >> equipment.
> >>
> >> - Tom
> >>
> >>
> >> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 10:58 AM -0500 11/27/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> John Shutt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>  And Bert's insistence to the contrary, I know very well we
> >>>>>  could have done better.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Some people are just inconsolable.
> >>>>
> >>>> The facts are, one by one all the oft-repeated objections to 8-VSB
> have
> >>>> dropped by the wayside, as was predictable from fairly early on. The
> >>>> dreaded cliff effect remains, of course, which affects all modulation
> >>>> schemes. It would be great to do another comparison test now, but
> since
> >>>> no one would benefit from it, it won't happen. Alas.
> >>>>
> >>> And some people are just blinded with optimism.
> >>>
> >>> All you are able to relate is that the ATSC system has become usable
> by
> >>> a handful of laggards who are unwilling or unable to pay a monthly
> >>> subscriber fee for their TV fix.
> >>>
> >>> For now the ATSC system will work as advertised for a the very small
> >>> percentage of the population that uses an antenna. Will this continue
> to
> >>> be true in a few years?
> >>>
> >>> What will happen to the image quality of programming if and when
> >>> broadcasters decide that they want to reach portable and mobile
> >>> receivers?  New services will need to steal bits from existing
> services
> >>> - bits that will need even more bits to get delivered reliably using a
> >>> standard that is still being developed. In other words, ALL legacy
> >>> receivers WILL NOT be able to use these new services, but the quality
> of
> >>> the existing services is likely to be compromised.
> >>>
> >>> There are SO MANY ways we could have done better:
> >>>
> >>> - A modulation system that has the flexibility to be optimized for
> >>> different services on the fly, WITHOUT a hefty bit penalty for the
> more
> >>> demanding MPH modes.
> >>>
> >>> - A spectrum allocation system that would have forced the broadcasters
> >>> to use SFNs to provide BETTER coverage of their markets WITHOUT
> >>> radiating into adjacent markets, with the net result of improved
> >>> spectral efficiency that would allow EVERY market to have at least
> twice
> >>> as many channels.
> >>>
> >>> - A political/regulatory environment that would have removed the
> >>> anti-competitive perks that broadcasters are using to avoid
> competition
> >>> with multi-channel systems.
> >>>
> >>> - A well defined platform that supports news services and the ability
> to
> >>> extend the capabilities of the system using software defined
> >>> functionality as is the case with web browsers.
> >>>
> >>> We are all glad for you Bert. The ATSC has succeeded in its quest to
> >>> replicate the NTSC service. Hope you are enjoying the better pictures
> >>> and sound, and the same lame, old, dying programming.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Craig
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Tom Barry                  trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: