On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Constance Warner<cawar...@his.com> wrote:
> The debate may be over, but the consequences are not. One consequence > that's ongoing: TV reception that's eccentric at best. So why not talk > about it? Among other things, useful information can be exchanged: e.g. > which types and brands of antenna work best, where to get them, and other > tips. Of course we will continue to discuss this just as we continue to discuss other computer topics. There a number of aspects concerning this digital transition that are actually still being debated and will continue to be for some time to come. A very important aspect is the digital television receiver. The receiver is critical to the signal chain and can have a great impact on the ability of the viewer to be able to receive a broadcast. The receiver is as important to receiving a signal as is the antenna or the transmitter and its power and location relative to the viewers location. There are no standards mandated by the FCC for television receivers. Never have been. Not even for the now pretty much deceased analog system. Receivers can be as good or as crappy as the manufacturer wants them to be. Recent calls for standardization have been beaten back by industry, headed up by the lobbying of the Consumer Electronics Association. The 8-VSB digital broadcast system was dictated by the FCC to be the standard for broadcasts in the United States. This system was chosen over the system used by most of the other nations of the world, and is used by only three countries, Canada, the United States and, if I am not mistaken here, New Zealand. Back in the early days of analog, the United States decided to go with an inferior standard than was chosen by most of the rest of the world. and we have probably done it again. The 8-VSB system is generally regarded as the most troublesome in terms of being able to obtain good reception under adverse conditions as compared to the COFDM system used by most of the rest of the world. Our system is more prone to interference, and it is that interference that is causing a lot of our current reception problems, especially in urban areas. This is where some minimum receiver specification standards would be of great help. Receivers can be designed to include circuitry and components that can help to minimize multipath interference that causes loss of signal and pixellation problems. Some receivers are a lot more sensitive to low signal levels than are others, and can thus capture a signal than could not otherwise be received. Receiver sensitivity and the ability to fend off interference problems is much more important with our new digital TV than it was with the old analog system, and is the reason why standards for receivers is now being debated. The manufacturing industry has thus far been successful in convincing the FCC that the marketplace should be the one and only determining factor involved in sorting out this end of the problem, while others maintain that some minimum standards would be of immense help in offsetting receptions problems that were both anticipated as well as being a reality. There is a royalty fee that is paid to Zenith Corp., the holder of the 8-VSB patent, and this royalty fee ranges from $24 to about $41 per DTV television set that is sold. The amount of the fee is dependent upon the screen size of the TV set. I do not know what the fee is for each converter box, but there is one. Those royalty fees are quite steep, and add to the cost of digital TV sets. Since the fee is the same regardless of the quality of the signal processor, wouldn't it be to the benefit of the consumer if the signal processor met certain minimum standards in terms of capability? Many think so, but the industry disagrees. In fact, it is very difficult for consumers to obtain and be able to compare receiver specs other than screen size and resolution. If there were mandated standards, those specs would most likely be widely available and could be of great assistance to consumers when they are making purchasing decisions. Broadcasters like the 8-VSB system because it is cheaper to operate than the COFDM system. The 8-VSB system allows for less transmitter power to get a usable signal to the receiver under ideal conditions, but the trade-off is being more prone to multipath interference on the receive end under typical conditions. That being said, two networks, CBS, and ABC if memory serves me well, initially objected to the 8-VSB system being chosen over COFDM because of the known reception problems, but the story has it that extreme lobbying by Zenith and an amalgam of patent holders relative to the 8-VSB system held sway and we have what we now have. Steve ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
