David
July 7th 03, 04:39 PM
Bob, your [datacasting business] postings were deleted from the AVS forum
last night.
"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> The debate goes on in the Denver thread on AVSFORUM and the only answer to
> the problem is lets keep demanding the same thing forever.
>
> Originally posted by jeffden
> Gear,
>
> How about let's try and get the signals to the metro area with fairly
strong
> power from the current antenna locations and then see about the coverage
> without repeaters, etc.. Whether COFDM was a superior transmission scheme
or
> not, ATSC via 8VSB was chosen. Bringing that "point" into this discussion
of
> the towers would be a waste of all of our time.
>
> Jeff
>
> Forget COFDM solve the problem with 8-VSB. I have not heard anyone talk of
> using an SFN or On Channel Repeaters to do that. The opponents of the
> current site are worried about the power lever of a single transmitter,
use
> a number of low power transmitters in an SFN. They are worried about a
> shadow problem with the Squaw location lets talk about using a repeater to
> solve the Squaw shadow. If you don't have the frequency to use a repeater
> use an On Channel Repeater.
>
> This Denver problem has been going on forever and no one is bringing up
the
> simple solutions that 8-VSB has professed to have in its bag of tricks.
Why
> not?
>
> Your solution is to "let's try and get the signals to the metro area with
> fairly strong power from the current antenna locations and then see about
> the coverage without repeaters" but isn't that what has not been working
for
> how long? Where is your imagination?
>
> Now if you want to talk COFDM you can cover Denver with perfect reception
> with 7 or 8 500 Watt transmitters, $150 dollar receivers that work mobile
or
> fixed and simple receive antennas that will pick up signals omni. And
those
> COFDM transmitters would work with simple broadcast antennas that could be
> placed on current cell towers or apartment buildings.
>
> Of course we will have to wait a couple more years before 8-VSB bites the
> dust to do that. What happens when CARE realizes that all that is being
> demanded in Denver is unnecessary and the result of lazy engineering and
> ignorant broadcasters?
>
>
>
last night.
"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> The debate goes on in the Denver thread on AVSFORUM and the only answer to
> the problem is lets keep demanding the same thing forever.
>
> Originally posted by jeffden
> Gear,
>
> How about let's try and get the signals to the metro area with fairly
strong
> power from the current antenna locations and then see about the coverage
> without repeaters, etc.. Whether COFDM was a superior transmission scheme
or
> not, ATSC via 8VSB was chosen. Bringing that "point" into this discussion
of
> the towers would be a waste of all of our time.
>
> Jeff
>
> Forget COFDM solve the problem with 8-VSB. I have not heard anyone talk of
> using an SFN or On Channel Repeaters to do that. The opponents of the
> current site are worried about the power lever of a single transmitter,
use
> a number of low power transmitters in an SFN. They are worried about a
> shadow problem with the Squaw location lets talk about using a repeater to
> solve the Squaw shadow. If you don't have the frequency to use a repeater
> use an On Channel Repeater.
>
> This Denver problem has been going on forever and no one is bringing up
the
> simple solutions that 8-VSB has professed to have in its bag of tricks.
Why
> not?
>
> Your solution is to "let's try and get the signals to the metro area with
> fairly strong power from the current antenna locations and then see about
> the coverage without repeaters" but isn't that what has not been working
for
> how long? Where is your imagination?
>
> Now if you want to talk COFDM you can cover Denver with perfect reception
> with 7 or 8 500 Watt transmitters, $150 dollar receivers that work mobile
or
> fixed and simple receive antennas that will pick up signals omni. And
those
> COFDM transmitters would work with simple broadcast antennas that could be
> placed on current cell towers or apartment buildings.
>
> Of course we will have to wait a couple more years before 8-VSB bites the
> dust to do that. What happens when CARE realizes that all that is being
> demanded in Denver is unnecessary and the result of lazy engineering and
> ignorant broadcasters?
>
>
>