FAA ADS-B Out NPRM needs your input

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Many pilots, if they have heard about ADS-B, think that it means free
weather.

IT DOES NOT

This proposal will mandate potentially costly avionics that in my
analysis provide little or nothing to the GA pilot. You will still
have to keep your Mode C transponder.

You won't get free weather.

You won't get traffic alerts in your cockpit.

You only get to pay thousands (TBD but possibly over $7000 per plane)
for something that only helps the airlines.

The official link to read the NPRM and submit comments is here:

http://tinyurl.com/2raefd

My analysis (which is still in work and may not be done until November
or later) is here:

http://tinyurl.com/2wem8j

My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
reflect your views (possibly shorter).

Ron Lee

[S Green]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Many pilots, if they have heard about ADS-B, think that it means free
> weather.
>
> IT DOES NOT
>
> This proposal will mandate potentially costly avionics that in my
> analysis provide little or nothing to the GA pilot. You will still
> have to keep your Mode C transponder.
>
> You won't get free weather.
>
> You won't get traffic alerts in your cockpit.
>
> You only get to pay thousands (TBD but possibly over $7000 per plane)
> for something that only helps the airlines.
>
> The official link to read the NPRM and submit comments is here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2raefd
>
> My analysis (which is still in work and may not be done until November
> or later) is here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2wem8j
>
> My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
> If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
> may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
> reflect your views (possibly shorter).
>
> Ron Lee

Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"S Green" > wrote:

My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
>> If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
>> may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
>> reflect your views (possibly shorter).
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?
>

You are free to disagree with anything I wrote. I would be surprised
if you did not concur with my views if you read everything provided.

Ron Lee

[Angelo Campanella[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> "S Green" > wrote:
> My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
>>>If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
>>>may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
>>>reflect your views (possibly shorter).
>>Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?
> You are free to disagree with anything I wrote. I would be surprised
> if you did not concur with my views if you read everything provided.

Around 1985, I attended an RTCA meeting where this transponder mode was
discussed. (S-mode?). What has happened since, other than 20 years ago
positional (GPS) information was not available, but barometeric,
velocity and heading were, along with acft identification. My
recollection was that the degree of acft identification was a sticky
point then, and that transponder signal clutter could be intense in
termial areas.

My attitude then and now was and is that, I would not stand in the way
of pormulgating it gradually (is 20+ years gradual enough?). Clearly,
the data processing and sensors are now all in place.

So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
aspects of this specific NPRM?

Angelo Campanella (Flying IFR since 1965).

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Angelo Campanella > wrote:

> So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
>actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
>we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
>aspects of this specific NPRM?

Read the NPRM. Read my response. Does the mandate of a multi thousand
dollar piece of equipment that provides little or no benefit to you
matter?

The FAA needs more PRIMARY radars...not reliance on ADS-B or
transponders.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Angelo Campanella > wrote:
>
> So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
>actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
>we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
>aspects of this specific NPRM?

Read my writeup. One biggie is having to pay lots of money for no
benefit (I don't consider the SAR related possible benefit as worth
anything to me).

Ron Lee

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Angelo Campanella > wrote:
>>
>> So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
>>actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
>>we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
>>aspects of this specific NPRM?
>
> Read my writeup. One biggie is having to pay lots of money for no
> benefit (I don't consider the SAR related possible benefit as worth
> anything to me).

What was the link for your write-up, again, please?

One comment off the top of my head, (before I have read more of your info
about the issue) is that if the feds want us to all change to a GPS
reporting type of traffic surveillance and control, is that they should pay
to put the technology in each plane.

A box could be contracted (to be designed and built) that would have a GPS
in it linked to the reporting transmitter, in a all in one unit. To save
cost and complexity, it would not need to have any display of the GPS data
available to the pilot.

The government is going to be doing a similar type of purchase of technology
for the public to make the change from standard definition TV to high
definition TV, by allowing all households to get two coupons free of charge
to be exchanged for a set top box that changed high definition signals to
standard definition signal for the old TV's.
--
Jim in NC

[Marty Shapiro]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:


>
> The government is going to be doing a similar type of purchase of
> technology for the public to make the change from standard definition
> TV to high definition TV, by allowing all households to get two
> coupons free of charge to be exchanged for a set top box that changed
> high definition signals to standard definition signal for the old
> TV's.

Those coupons for a DTV to analog converter are only worth $40 each.
Wednesday, Fry's Electronics was selling this converter for $179. The Feds
are NOT giving the consumer a free converter.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marty Shapiro" <> wrote

> Those coupons for a DTV to analog converter are only worth $40 each.
> Wednesday, Fry's Electronics was selling this converter for $179. The
> Feds
> are NOT giving the consumer a free converter.

40 bucks is way too low, and 179 bucks is way too high.

I hope the price of the converters come down, a lot.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/ReplytoFAAADS-BOutNPRM.doc

[Marty Shapiro]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Marty Shapiro" <> wrote
>
>> Those coupons for a DTV to analog converter are only worth $40 each.
>> Wednesday, Fry's Electronics was selling this converter for $179. The
>> Feds
>> are NOT giving the consumer a free converter.
>
> 40 bucks is way too low, and 179 bucks is way too high.
>
> I hope the price of the converters come down, a lot.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
expects the price of the converter box to drop to about $50 to $60. Of
course, if the manufacturers want to push us into buying new TVs, VCRs,
DVRs, etc, they will just keep the price on these high. At Fry's
Electronics, they only converter they had for sale was from Samsung. My
guess is that there will be a run on these come February 17, 2009.

The web site http://dtvanswers.com gives a lot more information.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
> The government is going to be doing a similar type of purchase of technology
> for the public to make the change from standard definition TV to high
> definition TV,


A common misconception. It's not an SD vs HD issue. It's analog vs
digital.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" wrote

> A common misconception. It's not an SD vs HD issue. It's analog vs
> digital.

Close enough, for the great masses. My mom has a hard (very hard) time just
operating a TV remote. Tell her HD vs. SD and she has a chance at it.

The only thing you need to know is that it is a different signal format, and
one won't work with the other.
--
Jim in NC

[Scott[_5_]]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:20:11 GMT, in rec.aviation.piloting, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in
:
>
>> I hope the price of the converters come down, a lot.
>
> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>expects the price of the converter box to drop to about $50 to $60. Of
>course, if the manufacturers want to push us into buying new TVs, VCRs,
>DVRs, etc, they will just keep the price on these high. At Fry's
>Electronics, they only converter they had for sale was from Samsung. My
>guess is that there will be a run on these come February 17, 2009.

The sensible part of my mind wants to think that if DTV adoption is not high
enough, the television advertising industry (which is the only bunch of
folks with any real stake in this) will subsidize the devices to whatever
degree necessary to retain their audience. The cynical part of me says that
in that circumstance, the ad industry will cry and whine until the
government pays to subsidize them.

I'd be more ashamed of my cynicism if that business model didn't seem to be
working so well for the airlines.

-Scott

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Newps" wrote
>
>
>>A common misconception. It's not an SD vs HD issue. It's analog vs
>>digital.
>
>
> Close enough, for the great masses. My mom has a hard (very hard) time just
> operating a TV remote. Tell her HD vs. SD and she has a chance at it.
>
> The only thing you need to know is that it is a different signal format, and
> one won't work with the other.


It is also irrelevant for the vast majority of people. If you have
cable TV or satellite the changeover is a nonissue. It only matters if
you are getting your signal over the air such as by using rabbit ears.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" <> wrote

> It is also irrelevant for the vast majority of people. If you have cable
> TV or satellite the changeover is a nonissue. It only matters if you are
> getting your signal over the air such as by using rabbit ears.

How so?

Most of the cable system's local channels are picked up from over the air
broadcasts, and then transmitted to the user over the cables. If there is
no analog signals being broadcast, the signal being sent to the consumer
will be analog. That will require a converter, then.

I would imagine all of the cable only networks will also be using digital
broadcasts at that time, also.

Are you thinking that the cable system will be using boxes that will have a
built in analog output? I have not heard that that is what they will do;
have you?

If that is so, I will still have a problem. I have 1 TV in the house hooked
to the box, with the rest using the raw cable signal, to provide independent
viewing, at least up to channel 77. I would still need converters for those
channels.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Newps" <> wrote
>
>
>>It is also irrelevant for the vast majority of people. If you have cable
>>TV or satellite the changeover is a nonissue. It only matters if you are
>>getting your signal over the air such as by using rabbit ears.
>
>
> How so?
>
> Most of the cable system's local channels are picked up from over the air
> broadcasts, and then transmitted to the user over the cables. If there is
> no analog signals being broadcast, the signal being sent to the consumer
> will be analog. That will require a converter, then.

It is irrelevant how your provider gets their signals or in what form
they get them. I have satellite. All satellite signals(Directv and
Dish) are digital. All older satellite boxes output analog only
signals. These would be the cable jack, RCA jacks and the S Video jack.
Newer boxes eliminate the cable jack but keep the other two. My
current generation Directv HD boxes do this. They also output in
digital format as well, these being component video, DVI and HDMI.
Cable TV is virtually the same. Standard cable is analog. Digital
cable is of course digital but the box will output both formats just
like satellite.



> Are you thinking that the cable system will be using boxes that will have a
> built in analog output? I have not heard that that is what they will do;
> have you?

They do this now.



>
> If that is so, I will still have a problem. I have 1 TV in the house hooked
> to the box, with the rest using the raw cable signal, to provide independent
> viewing, at least up to channel 77. I would still need converters for those
> channels.

I am not aware of any cable system that allows direct hookup of digital
cable right to the back of the TV without first going thru a converter
box. It's certainly possible but I think the hangup is a lack of a
standard. So you're forced to run it thru the box first and the box
simply converts it to channel 3 or 4 if you have an analog TV.

[Marty Shapiro]

(Scott) wrote in news:4748e56a.551894267@localhost:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:20:11 GMT, in rec.aviation.piloting, Marty
> Shapiro > wrote:
>
>>"Morgans" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> I hope the price of the converters come down, a lot.
>>
>> The National Telecommunications and Information
>> Administration (NTIA)
>>expects the price of the converter box to drop to about $50 to $60.
>>Of course, if the manufacturers want to push us into buying new TVs,
>>VCRs, DVRs, etc, they will just keep the price on these high. At
>>Fry's Electronics, they only converter they had for sale was from
>>Samsung. My guess is that there will be a run on these come February
>>17, 2009.
>
> The sensible part of my mind wants to think that if DTV adoption is
> not high enough, the television advertising industry (which is the
> only bunch of folks with any real stake in this) will subsidize the
> devices to whatever degree necessary to retain their audience. The
> cynical part of me says that in that circumstance, the ad industry
> will cry and whine until the government pays to subsidize them.
>
> I'd be more ashamed of my cynicism if that business model didn't seem
> to be working so well for the airlines.
>
> -Scott
>

I wouldn't hold my breath. OTA (over-the-air)class A channels (high
power) must switch to all digital on February 17, 2009. They do not have
the option of continuing to broadcast in analag after that date. Most
channels already are broadcasting in digital as well as analog. Just about
every HD set sold for the past three years already has the ATSC (digital)
tuner. As of March 1, 2007, all tunable sets (TV, VCR, DVR) imported to
the U.S. or manufactured in the U.S. have to have both the analog and
digital tuners, although existing stock without a digital tuner could be
sold as long as a warning about the requirement of a converter was clearly
displayed at the point of sale. If the price of the converter remains
high, it might just push the sale of new sets. The prices I saw last
Wednesday on VCRs and DVD recorders, for example, made it a much smarter
choice to simply buy a new one rather than buy a converter even with the
$40 coupon.

Cable and satellite are not required to switch to digital. Since
their customers pay for service, there is more clout there for them to
supply an analog signal, at least for a few years. But some cable
companies are already switching some cable only channels to digital to
better utilize their available bandwidth.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" > wrote
>
> I am not aware of any cable system that allows direct hookup of digital
> cable right to the back of the TV without first going thru a converter
> box. It's certainly possible but I think the hangup is a lack of a
> standard. So you're forced to run it thru the box first and the box
> simply converts it to channel 3 or 4 if you have an analog TV.

I'll have to tell Charter that they are doing their signal wrong, cause I
can get channels till the cows come home with the cable going right into the
back of my TV's.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On 25 Nov, 10:50, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>
>
> > I am not aware of any cable system that allows direct hookup of digital
> > cable right to the back of the TV without first going thru a converter
> > box. It's certainly possible but I think the hangup is a lack of a
> > standard. So you're forced to run it thru the box first and the box
> > simply converts it to channel 3 or 4 if you have an analog TV.
>
> I'll have to tell Charter that they are doing their signal wrong, cause I
> can get channels till the cows come home with the cable going right into the

I have no idea how the US digital TV works and
little idea how th UK one does so I might be comparing
apples with bananas but you can get a convertor
box for 10 GBP (20 USD) here now. These will
absolutely not work with a US TV but they are probably
quite similar in function.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/29/supermarkets.digitaltvradio

"We've seen the cheapest digital box go from £100 to £10 in just five
years"
"was introduced in October 2002 and to date, 19m
set-top boxes and TV sets with built in digital receivers
have been sold."

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> I am not aware of any cable system that allows direct hookup of digital
> cable right to the back of the TV without first going thru a converter
> box. It's certainly possible but I think the hangup is a lack of a
> standard. So you're forced to run it thru the box first and the box
> simply converts it to channel 3 or 4 if you have an analog TV.

Some cable companies do have some unencrypted digital cable channels,
but apparently they can change that at will.

from a FAQ at www.elgato.com

3) Unencrypted digital cable - ³Clear QAM" is similar to basic cable, but in
digital form. The channels are not scrambled or blocked, but only a small
number of channels are available for viewing. Some channels may be SDTV
(standard), and some may be HDTV (high definition). Typically, networks like
NBC or FOX will be present, along with public access, shopping, local, PBS, and
perhaps some radio channels.

4) Encrypted digital cable - ³Digital Cable" is typically encrypted, or encoded
so that you need a cable box (or CableCARD) to view it. If you have 500 digital
cable channels that you receive with a cable box, then the majority of these
channels will be encrypted. A Clear QAM tuner can¹t receive encrypted digital
cable; HDHomeRun can¹t receive the majority of your digital cable channels.

Therefore, HDHomeRun only receives a few cable channels, those that are Clear
QAM (unencrypted). It cannot use a cable box, and it can¹t receive most of your
channels. The channels it can receive vary city by city, and some channels may
be there one day, and gone in a few months. Essentially, your cable company
reserves the right to encrypt and decrypt channels at will, but usually you¹ll
see the networks, and some other content.

That said, Clear QAM tuners can receive HDTV content, if available. For example,
ABC may start airing HDTV content at 8PM nightly. That may be 720p or 1080i,
depending on the channel.

Clear QAM also sometimes offers more than one channel on the same frequency. In
that case, EyeTV can open up all channels on the same frequency, at the same
time (or any combination of channels on that frequency).

If you use digital cable, please be aware of the strengths and limitations of
Clear QAM tuners before purchasing HDHomeRun. You may want to contact your
cable company, to find out if any of their channels are in Clear QAM format.
You can also search the internet for such information - it¹s common to find an
article or message board post from people in your same city who are already
using Clear QAM content. Unfortunately, no master list of Clear QAM service
providers is available to Elgato.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:50:19 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Newps" > wrote
>>
>> I am not aware of any cable system that allows direct hookup of digital
>> cable right to the back of the TV without first going thru a converter
>> box. It's certainly possible but I think the hangup is a lack of a
>> standard. So you're forced to run it thru the box first and the box
>> simply converts it to channel 3 or 4 if you have an analog TV.
>
> I'll have to tell Charter that they are doing their signal wrong, cause I
>can get channels till the cows come home with the cable going right into the
>back of my TV's.

Comcast here has digital OTA through the cable without a converter
box. I would only need a converter box for the pay channels, and
that's not so much of a converter box as it is an access module to
descramble the signals.

[Scott[_5_]]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:13:36 GMT, in rec.aviation.piloting, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

(Scott) wrote in news:4748e56a.551894267@localhost:
>> The sensible part of my mind wants to think that if DTV adoption is
>> not high enough, the television advertising industry (which is the
>> only bunch of folks with any real stake in this) will subsidize the
>> devices to whatever degree necessary to retain their audience. The
>> cynical part of me says that in that circumstance, the ad industry
>> will cry and whine until the government pays to subsidize them.
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath. OTA (over-the-air)class A channels (high
>power) must switch to all digital on February 17, 2009. They do not have
>the option of continuing to broadcast in analag after that date. Most

True, but consumers have the alternative to simply *not* upgrade their
equipment. When analog broadcasts stop, people can choose to just turn the
thing off and pick up a book instead. That's the sort of thing that
advertisers don't want to see, and the only real reason that settop digital
tuner equipment might be subsidized.

> Cable and satellite are not required to switch to digital. Since

Some of them are already digital, some aren't -- it doesn't matter. An OTA
DTV settop tuner is just catching up with what the cable and sat guys have
been doing for years. Separate the tuner from the video and audio monitors,
you gain a lot of flexibility in the system.

-Scott

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:50:19 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Newps" > wrote
>>
>> I am not aware of any cable system that allows direct hookup of digital
>> cable right to the back of the TV without first going thru a converter
>> box. It's certainly possible but I think the hangup is a lack of a
>> standard. So you're forced to run it thru the box first and the box
>> simply converts it to channel 3 or 4 if you have an analog TV.
>
> I'll have to tell Charter that they are doing their signal wrong, cause I
>can get channels till the cows come home with the cable going right into the
>back of my TV's.

Yup. So far around here Carter uses "at the pole" block filters. If
you look up at the bottom of the connection "up there" you'll see one
or more colored plugs.

Roger (K8RI)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> Yup. So far around here Carter uses "at the pole" block filters. If
> you look up at the bottom of the connection "up there" you'll see one
> or more colored plugs.

Charter around me is much more advanced. They send signals via fiber optics
to powered boxes scattered around, that then feed about ten houses with coax
cables. All of the premium packages are sent via the optics converters that
then send the extra channels out each line. That also enables them to offer
cable internet services.


They can add channels as you order them, and are speaking to them on the
phone.

It's kinda neat. :-)
--
Jim in NC