Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: HDTV

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:16 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: "James H. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: HDTV

    Let me recap and ask another set of questions.
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave each existing broadcaster an
additional 6 MHz channel for Digital Television (DTV).  Although this was
justified in part by saying that Americans needed a higher-quality signal,
Congress did not require that the additional channel be used for
high-definition television (HDTV) broadcasts.  The networks (CBS, NBC, ABC,
Fox?), however, either already or soon will distribute some of their
programming to affiliates in high-definition.
    Meanwhile, the stations are beginning to broadcast on their DTV channel.
Presumably, they will broadcast the same signal on both of their two
channels during the transition to DTV.  (The transition must be complete by
2006 when they will give back the channel used for conventional broadcasts).
At least, that is what I assume from Paul Christensen's post.  But, are they
required to do broadcast the programming from their analog signal on their
DTV channel during the transition?  Is the answer relevant to the must-carry
question?
    I used the math of a 4:1 ratio between an HDTV signal and a conventional
quality signal.  That is, when transmitted digitally, the HDTV signal
requires 4 times the bandwidth of the conventional quality signal.  Paul's
email suggested that a DTV station was capable of transmitting six
conventional-quality programs.  I assume that if such a station transmitted
an HDTV signal it could only transmit that signal plus two conventional
quality signals in its 6 MHz of spectrum.  Is this math right?
    My main question though is whether the FCC rules define HDTV?  If not,
where can you look for a definition?  Suppose I want to write a contract
between a programmer and cable operator and suppose the programmer wants to
be sure that the viewer will get a high-definition signal.  How do I define
HDTV quality?  How do I define conventional-quality?  I am told that "raster
gizmos" (obviously, a highly technical term) smooth out a conventional
signal for a high-definition television set in order to make the picture
look sharper than it otherwise would.  How does that affect the problem of
defining signal quality?

Jim Johnston

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Share the magic of Harry Potter with Yahoo! Messenger
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4Q_cgB/JmBFAA/46VHAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: "Gregg R. Lengling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:55:46 -0600

There is no rule that I can find that requires High Def. broadcasting, just digital broadcasting.  You are correct they can compress 6 NTSC signals into an 8VSB transport stream, however the quality is less than real NTSC, the actual real limit is 4 programs.  The local CBS affiliate is compressing 1 HDTV and 2 NTSC's on it's allocation much to HDTV viewers dismay.  College football games suffer the most with plenty of artifacting.

Gregg R. Lengling, W9DHI
PYSCHOLOGY:  The science of inventing words for things that do not exist.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Marcel 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:21 PM
  Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: HDTV

  -------- Original Message --------
  From: "James H. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
  Subject:  Re: HDTV

  Jim Johnston

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

From: "refmon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:04:37 -0800

Hi,

I've watched this discussion go by and originally decided to not respond due
to the broadcasting industry's profoundly poor definitions of terms
throughout and the complete and utter failure to jump start this alleged
HDTV thing.  Dear God, there's not even a consensus on a transmission format
after all this time.  As a consultant to front line manufacturers,
broadcasters, and systems integrators, I am disappointed to see the way this
entire effort has degenerated.  Yes, it started as Digital TV, assumed by
the public to be HDTV, but as has been handily pointed out, there ain't no
bandwidth for real HDTV...it is real HDTV at the studio, and is quite
impressive, but by the time it is digitally compressed, bandwidth is stolen
for "ancillary data", etc, the viewer gets pure crap compared to what they
expected.  No amount of refiddling, smoothing, algorithming, etc will change
the fact that the viewer will see only derived facsimile of what is claimed.
Meanwhile, the craftier broadcasters, see the loophole in "Digital TV" and
go to multicasting...this amounts to squeezing multiple revenue streams out
of the same bandwidth that used to pass one pretty darn good signal.  All
the sales blab, marketing flap, beauty brochures in the world don't change
the basic fact that real HDTV requires 1.56GB of bandwidth period...anything
less is compromised at best.  Don't get me wrong...technically, there are
big steps forward available, but the broadcasters are not currently using
them in large numbers.  Having been in the business for over 30 years and
seen some very exciting developments, I am disheartened to see the effort
change from "excellence at any cost" to "what's the absolute least we can do
to fulfill our obligation".  Gees, half of the manufacturers that tooled up
for HDTV and have some really great stuff, don't even bother to bring it to
trade shows any more.  Sure, eventually a half-hearted takeoff will occur
and consumers will have zillion dollar TV's to watch mediocre programming in
odd-ball formats in sufficient numbers to make it all work, but in the end,
who really needs multiple mediocre, repeat programs ...don't we already have
that?   And what's all this local ancillary data?  Thank goodness I won't
need a TV guide...or will I?  By the way, the broadcasters will have to
simulcast their primary channel (of the multi-channel digital) so that
legacy viewers...(that's what they call people with real TV's so they'll
feel obsolete & buy new ones) don't lose their signal immediately, and so
manufacturers are not overwhelmed with the volume

While the technology is pretty great, and the expectations are as well, I
fear it will be a major disappointment to the public.

John
_____________________________________________