Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: BULLEish on Zenith Data Systems
Message-ID: <6181@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 89 15:22:49 GMT
References: <3938@blake.acs.washington.edu> <110200016@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 24

In article <110200016@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>I fail to see where the problem with bandwidth for HDTV lies, other
>than with the FCC. There are 81 channels available, 6 MHz each.
>[...] Say we use only UHF channels
>for HDTV, and take 18 Mhz for a channel. 

Well first not all channels are available. Stations using the same channel
have to be a large distance apart, and even those using adjacient channels
must be well separated. Most areas have used most if not all of their possible
channels.

The lets consider a "moral" issue. The radio frequencies are limited. Is
this a good use of bandwidth? A six megahertz TV channel has room for 30 
FM radio channels or 600 AM radio channels. Is the information content of
one 18Mhz HDTV station worth 1800 AM radio stations? And just think of all
the ASCII data that could be transmitted over that bandwidth -- you could
continuously transmit all the news services for instant retrieval. I bet
you could transmit the entire contents of the Sunday New York Times in the
time of a single High Definition Ty-De-Bowl commercial.

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply