The End of Free OTA
Bob Miller
in 2009 that Congresscritters or a Congresscritter might notice that
virtually no one is using digital channels 2-51.
And that this would lead to a proposal that these channel should be
taken from their current licensees and sold at auction. The idea of an
auction will be fresh in Congresscritters minds since they will have
just had one for channels 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66 and 67.
The billions they took in without having to vote for a tax will be very
fresh in their collective minds. (Google just promised at least $4.6
billion today).
With the arrival of figures showing that after the transition as few as
or less than ONE% of US households now depend on OTA....
With the fresh smell of money, $15 to $30 billion from the auctions of
60 MHz of BROADCAST TV spectrum in 2008....
And with the prospect of selling off the rest, 294 MHz of spectrum now
occupied by Cable money myopic broadcasters, now planted in their minds,
new age, those ushered in as the Republican party implodes,
Congresscritters will have a field day with the prospect.
And earlier than I expected it the press is starting to talk of just
this prospect.
http://www.drewclark.com/2007/07/back-to-paper-bag.shtml
And a related article about some of the corruption in broadcasting that
picks our pockets.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/art_spectrum_lobbying
Broadcasters are going to loose their spectrum, all of it.
Didn't have to happen if they were a bit more hyperopia. If they had
been awake at the wheel when things like their DTV modulation
compression codec were being discussed.
Bob Miller
JXStern
>Broadcasters are going to loose their spectrum, all of it.
Well, they don't care, do they? What little effort any of the
networks exerts today on their OTA stuff is losing popularity, anyway.
Broadcast is almost dead, it'll all be on-demand via cable/internet in
twenty years. OTA will just be for mobile and short-range hotspots.
Yessir, sonny, when I was a lad, there was free television.
Really, old dad?
Yes, kiddo, and music came on big, black disks, and video came on
tapes, and you had to plug your telephone into the wall to talk to
anybody. Then came global warming, and it all went away.
J.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| I have predicted that not to long after the digital transition is over
| in 2009 that Congresscritters or a Congresscritter might notice that
| virtually no one is using digital channels 2-51.
For any given channel in that range, you certainly will be able to find
millions of people not using it.
| And that this would lead to a proposal that these channel should be
| taken from their current licensees and sold at auction. The idea of an
| auction will be fresh in Congresscritters minds since they will have
| just had one for channels 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66 and 67.
| The billions they took in without having to vote for a tax will be very
| fresh in their collective minds. (Google just promised at least $4.6
| billion today).
Congress _will_ be getting floods of phone calls from people around
Feb 18, 2009, complaining of TV sets not working. In case you have
not attended any community meetings of Congress people (I have), the
majority, and in some cases the vast majority, are elderly in the
near and post retirement age. These are the same ones that make up
the majority of letters written to Congress.
After having gotten that response around Feb 18, 2009, they will be
very much afraid of trying to take TV away in the post-transition era.
That's what it would mean.
| With the arrival of figures showing that after the transition as few as
| or less than ONE% of US households now depend on OTA....
And where did you get this figure?
| With the fresh smell of money, $15 to $30 billion from the auctions of
| 60 MHz of BROADCAST TV spectrum in 2008....
|
| And with the prospect of selling off the rest, 294 MHz of spectrum now
| occupied by Cable money myopic broadcasters, now planted in their minds,
| new age, those ushered in as the Republican party implodes,
| Congresscritters will have a field day with the prospect.
Not at all likely to happen. And they know it will lead to a backlash
that ends up reversing some of those auctions.
| And earlier than I expected it the press is starting to talk of just
| this prospect.
|
| http://www.drewclark.com/2007/07/back-to-paper-bag.shtml
|
| And a related article about some of the corruption in broadcasting that
| picks our pockets.
| http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/art_spectrum_lobbying
|
| Broadcasters are going to loose their spectrum, all of it.
And I bet you are so looking forward to this.
| Didn't have to happen if they were a bit more hyperopia. If they had
| been awake at the wheel when things like their DTV modulation
| compression codec were being discussed.
Everything that _is_ wrong with over the air TV broadcasting (and there is
a lot, IMHO) has nothing to do with the modulation. It would be the same
whether COFDM or even QAM.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-200...@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
Matthew L. Martin
> I have predicted that not to long after the digital transition is over
> in 2009 that Congresscritters or a Congresscritter might notice that
> virtually no one is using digital channels 2-51.
And, like every single prediction you have made so far, you are wrong.
Please don't feel bad about this. Being 100% wrong is very difficult.
That you have kept this string going for years makes you the only
interweb kook that has consistently been wrong for this long.
Tholen, dank, [HAMMOND] and many others have made the mistake of being
right once (in a very great) while. You have miraculously avoided that
outcome.
Matthew
--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Bob Miller
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> wrote:
>
> | I have predicted that not to long after the digital transition is over
> | in 2009 that Congresscritters or a Congresscritter might notice that
> | virtually no one is using digital channels 2-51.
>
> For any given channel in that range, you certainly will be able to find
> millions of people not using it.
>
>
> | And that this would lead to a proposal that these channel should be
> | taken from their current licensees and sold at auction. The idea of an
> | auction will be fresh in Congresscritters minds since they will have
> | just had one for channels 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66 and 67.
> | The billions they took in without having to vote for a tax will be very
> | fresh in their collective minds. (Google just promised at least $4.6
> | billion today).
>
> Congress _will_ be getting floods of phone calls from people around
> Feb 18, 2009, complaining of TV sets not working. In case you have
> not attended any community meetings of Congress people (I have), the
> majority, and in some cases the vast majority, are elderly in the
> near and post retirement age. These are the same ones that make up
> the majority of letters written to Congress.
>
> After having gotten that response around Feb 18, 2009, they will be
> very much afraid of trying to take TV away in the post-transition era.
> That's what it would mean.
>
away their TV on February 18th, 2008. Or are you suggesting that
Congress is going to hire a fleet, I should say FLEETS, of installation
vans and crews to try to install millions of rooftop antennas for those
subsidized DTV converter boxes?
No those millions of elderly people are going to be just out of luck
with TV sets with or without converters that just don't work.
They are not going to have TV anymore. Congress has NO plan. If you
think they do go to the Communicators and listen to Congressman Fred
Upton who they interviewed today. He has no clue. He never had a clue.
When the transition comes you will find him hiding under a rock
someplace pointing a finger at someone else.
>
> | With the arrival of figures showing that after the transition as few as
> | or less than ONE% of US households now depend on OTA....
>
> And where did you get this figure?
>
Since we are not at the transition yet the real figure is unknowable.
That is my high estimate. I am talking about households that depend on
OTA and have no other source of TV. There will be many households that
have an antenna as a backup. Others who watch it sometimes or have it on
a TV in the kids room which they mostly use for games. ETC.
But OTA will not be necessary for more than ONE% of the households in
the US IMO.
>
> | With the fresh smell of money, $15 to $30 billion from the auctions of
> | 60 MHz of BROADCAST TV spectrum in 2008....
> |
> | And with the prospect of selling off the rest, 294 MHz of spectrum now
> | occupied by Cable money myopic broadcasters, now planted in their minds,
> | new age, those ushered in as the Republican party implodes,
> | Congresscritters will have a field day with the prospect.
>
> Not at all likely to happen. And they know it will lead to a backlash
> that ends up reversing some of those auctions.
>
That should be an interesting legal prospect, taking back what was
legally purchased at auction and letting the current broadcasters play
with it for free for more years? Interesting lawsuits would ensue.
>
> | And earlier than I expected it the press is starting to talk of just
> | this prospect.
> |
> | http://www.drewclark.com/2007/07/back-to-paper-bag.shtml
> |
> | And a related article about some of the corruption in broadcasting that
> | picks our pockets.
> | http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/art_spectrum_lobbying
> |
> | Broadcasters are going to loose their spectrum, all of it.
>
> And I bet you are so looking forward to this.
>
Why would I be looking forward to it? I have been warning that it would
happen for 9 years hoping to keep it from happening. I think that free
OTA TV is very important.
>
> | Didn't have to happen if they were a bit more hyperopia. If they had
> | been awake at the wheel when things like their DTV modulation
> | compression codec were being discussed.
>
> Everything that _is_ wrong with over the air TV broadcasting (and there is
> a lot, IMHO) has nothing to do with the modulation. It would be the same
> whether COFDM or even QAM.
>
Most modulations that use COFDM are QAM.
And it has everything to do with the modulation. If the US had a decent
COFDM based QAM modulation there would be over 120 million OTA receivers
in use today in the US.
And I mean in use not stuck in the back of integrated HDTV sets sold to
unsuspecting customers who have no idea they bought such a thing as an
OTA receiver.
OTA would be wildly popular and would have promoted HD in the US and
around the world far more than the lack of OTA in the US has done.
Broadcasters would be DOING mobile TV not trying to fix 8-VSB so that
maybe they can do mobile someday. They would be doing mobile HD and ED
and SD. The US would be the leaders in OTA DTV not the basket case we are.
Retailers would be featuring OTA solutions both fixed and mobile. Just
like in other countries where OTA DTV is the fastest growing electronic
wonder ever. Cable and satellite would be under pressure from OTA
offerings just like they are in the UK, Germany and other countries.
Bob Miller
Sam
"JXStern" <JXSternC...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:oo95a3tu57bqsrra8...@4ax.com...
telephone, the phone company wired it in place never to be moved by you
except for the length of the wire. Yu had to talk to an operator to get
connected to your next door neighbor who just happened to have the same
number as you, but with a different letter at the end. Your phone had one
ring and his phone had two rings, so you had to hang up while the operator
rang his phone. Those were the days! Then came private lines and dials and
push buttons and direct dialing and all went to blazes. Global warming
wasn't even a phrase yet.
I'd love to go back to those days, but only if I could take my computer with
me!
Sorry, I could not resist making comment.
Sam
Bruce Tomlin
Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> wrote:
> As far as most of those folks are concerned Congress WILL have taken
> away their TV on February 18th, 2008.
Jump the gun much?
Bruce Tomlin
Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> wrote:
> Or are you suggesting that
> Congress is going to hire a fleet, I should say FLEETS, of installation
> vans and crews to try to install millions of rooftop antennas for those
> subsidized DTV converter boxes?
If they weren't already watching OTA analog, why would they suddenly
need to start watching OTA digital? And if they were already watching
OTA analog, they already have either a roof antenna or (more likely)
rabbit ears.
Guess what Bob... THOSE RABBIT EARS WILL STILL WORK.
Bob Miller
If they do there will not be a problem. I don't think they will work.
This is not your engineer friend who is an early adopter who is willing
to do just about anything to get his OTA DTV to work. Mpt your rich
friend who can buy every new generation of OTA receiver. These will be
people who just want to watch TV.
They will hook up their converter box to their rabbit ears and if they
get reception they may not get all they channels they got before. They
may not get the ONE channel they want. If they get reception they may
get drop outs instead of snow.
Some will complain right away others later. Many will just go to cable
or satellite but will remember at the next election.
There will be a political price.
And then the media will wake up to just how bad the public has been had
by this transition. They will start looking at other countries and
wonder why they not only don't have this problem but also have a vibrant
rapidly growing OTA DTV experience.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
OOPS! Well technically maybe since the auctions are supposed to be
completed by then. Folks won't know it yet but the spectrum will have
been sold. The die will have been cast.
Bob Miller
Alan
>Bruce Tomlin wrote:
>> Guess what Bob... THOSE RABBIT EARS WILL STILL WORK.
>
>If they do there will not be a problem. I don't think they will work.
But, you don't know.
The experience of many here is that 8VSB works far better than you think it does,
so your guess is likely to be wrong.
>This is not your engineer friend who is an early adopter who is willing
>to do just about anything to get his OTA DTV to work. Mpt your rich
>friend who can buy every new generation of OTA receiver. These will be
>people who just want to watch TV.
>
>They will hook up their converter box to their rabbit ears and if they
>get reception they may not get all they channels they got before. They
>may not get the ONE channel they want. If they get reception they may
>get drop outs instead of snow.
They *may* not get all the channels that they got before. Of course,
they may get MORE CHANNELS than they got before. Often folks using rabbit
ears have some channels they get but are so ghost ridden they don't watch
them. Those are likely to come in perfectly.
Living partly shielded by hills, many of my analog signals are poor to
unwatchable. The digital versions are perfect.
Your speculations is nothing more -- just speculation without evidence.
Alan
common_
Despite the fact that Bob 'zeal" sometimes gets in the way of his
arguments - he is, and has been , mostly correct.
Its unfortunate, as OTA HD , with a good outside antenna is
wonderfully.
Problem is, hardly anybody has an outside antenna anymore - just
wander around your neighborhood, and tell me what percent of the homes
have roof top antennas?
Like Bob says - the american sheeple have not got a clue about the
ATSC tuner built into their new chinese made flat panel TV. They hook
it up to the cable TV box and wonder at the joys of a great big blurry
picture.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| As far as most of those folks are concerned Congress WILL have taken
| away their TV on February 18th, 2008. Or are you suggesting that
| Congress is going to hire a fleet, I should say FLEETS, of installation
| vans and crews to try to install millions of rooftop antennas for those
| subsidized DTV converter boxes?
I _wish_ it would be in 2008.
They may have to change to a UHF antenna.
| They are not going to have TV anymore. Congress has NO plan. If you
| think they do go to the Communicators and listen to Congressman Fred
| Upton who they interviewed today. He has no clue. He never had a clue.
Congressmen not having a clue? What are you trying to do, Bob?
Confuse us with facts?
| Since we are not at the transition yet the real figure is unknowable.
| That is my high estimate. I am talking about households that depend on
| OTA and have no other source of TV. There will be many households that
| have an antenna as a backup. Others who watch it sometimes or have it on
| a TV in the kids room which they mostly use for games. ETC.
|
| But OTA will not be necessary for more than ONE% of the households in
| the US IMO.
OTA will be making a comeback. A clean solid picture has always been so
elusive with analog (especially analog on cable). Digital is making a
difference. Sure some locations _will_ need a directional UHF antenna.
But this gets you HD or solid pictures or alternate programs cheaper
and sooner than cable is managing to do.
|> | And with the prospect of selling off the rest, 294 MHz of spectrum now
|> | occupied by Cable money myopic broadcasters, now planted in their minds,
|> | new age, those ushered in as the Republican party implodes,
|> | Congresscritters will have a field day with the prospect.
|>
|> Not at all likely to happen. And they know it will lead to a backlash
|> that ends up reversing some of those auctions.
|>
| That should be an interesting legal prospect, taking back what was
| legally purchased at auction and letting the current broadcasters play
| with it for free for more years? Interesting lawsuits would ensue.
Land can be taken by eminent domain, even when the purpose is to enhance
some non-government use. I suggest two points. One that radio spectrum
can be taken just as much as land, although only by the Feds. And that
the original action of selling, rather than leasing, the spectrum is not
even legal (because it is a rare resource and not literally owned by
those who were selling it). If this is overturned, they most certainly
would have to give the money back, with interest.
Selling spectrum was definitely wrong. We'll learn that in the future
when the government discovers it has no continuing revenue stream from it.
|> And I bet you are so looking forward to this.
|>
| Why would I be looking forward to it? I have been warning that it would
| happen for 9 years hoping to keep it from happening. I think that free
| OTA TV is very important.
No. You want to own a piece of it for yourself for your mobile services.
You want to see OTA die so you can grab some.
I predict OTA will still be around for at least 30 years. But who is
providing it may well change.
|> | Didn't have to happen if they were a bit more hyperopia. If they had
|> | been awake at the wheel when things like their DTV modulation
|> | compression codec were being discussed.
|>
|> Everything that _is_ wrong with over the air TV broadcasting (and there is
|> a lot, IMHO) has nothing to do with the modulation. It would be the same
|> whether COFDM or even QAM.
|>
| Most modulations that use COFDM are QAM.
FDM is just lots of little modulations in parallel. So what if each is
QAM instead of something like VSB or QPSK.
| And it has everything to do with the modulation. If the US had a decent
| COFDM based QAM modulation there would be over 120 million OTA receivers
| in use today in the US.
The reason this might actually be true is not due to any technical
benefit from the modulation here in the US, but rather, from the fact
that manufacturers geared up for DVB chipsets and products first
because the DVB market is larger.
| And I mean in use not stuck in the back of integrated HDTV sets sold to
| unsuspecting customers who have no idea they bought such a thing as an
| OTA receiver.
|
| OTA would be wildly popular and would have promoted HD in the US and
| around the world far more than the lack of OTA in the US has done.
|
| Broadcasters would be DOING mobile TV not trying to fix 8-VSB so that
| maybe they can do mobile someday. They would be doing mobile HD and ED
| and SD. The US would be the leaders in OTA DTV not the basket case we are.
They _will_ be doing mobile on 700 MHz. It just won't be _you_ getting a
piece of the action.
| Retailers would be featuring OTA solutions both fixed and mobile. Just
| like in other countries where OTA DTV is the fastest growing electronic
| wonder ever. Cable and satellite would be under pressure from OTA
| offerings just like they are in the UK, Germany and other countries.
When I managed to get the manager at a Circuit City store to hook up ONE
TV to an outside antenna, and it happened to bring in some channels from
other cities they had never gotten before, a couple of the sales guys
who were standing by to see this miraculous event said stuff like "I didn't
know it could do that" and "Gee, Bob Miller was wrong, afterall". :-)
Tantalust
> Despite the fact that Bob 'zeal" sometimes gets in the way of his
> arguments
By 'zeal', do you mean money-losing-business-concept = vengeance-
retaliation-reciprocation?
>tell me what percent of the homes have roof top antennas?
Are you and/or bob trying to imply that there's some heretofore unknown
foreign DTV system where people only require indoor antennas? I'd really
like to learn some more about that particular system.
Richard C.
==========================
"Bob Miller" <b...@viacel.com> spewed crap!
Alan F
>
> Problem is, hardly anybody has an outside antenna anymore - just
> wander around your neighborhood, and tell me what percent of the homes
> have roof top antennas?
Except in the hinterlands and more challenging areas for reception,
you can't really judge OTA ATSC reception by number of roof top
antennas. With analog, you generally wanted the best possible signal,
which meant at even medium range distances, you would go with a rooftop
antenna. But with digital, so long as the signal strength is good enough
for stable reception, you can use a attic or indoor antenna. As long you
are far enough above the minimum signal strength for reception to
maintain reception for the stations you want to get for bad weather or
changing seasons, you are set.
I have a Channel Master 4221 4 Bay bowtie and a CM pre-amp in the
attic of my townhouse. If you walked by, you would have no clue that I
had an antenna setup which picks up stations in DC at 16 miles,
Baltimore stations at 43 miles, and a few other stations in other
directions, including one at 48 miles. I could probably get a couple of
more minor stations if I put the antenna up on the roof with a rotator.
But I have a 3 story townhouse and the roof is way up there with no
chimney to use for bracing. I have thought about putting the CM 4221 up
on the roof, along with a Winegard YA6713 upper VHF antenna to prepare
for the more distant local stations switching to upper VHF in 2009. But
I would have to spend money on a professional installer and would have
to deal with occasional maintenance issues. So I'm sticking with the
attic for now.
Lower profile antenna are also popular that mount on the side of the
house. These may be mounted on the backside or a side of the house that
is not visible or obvious from the street. Some of these low profile
antennas are not very good and are overpriced, but if they are good
enough to get a stable signal, then they are good enough for the job at
hand.
Despite what Bob may think, stats from a major survey done for the FCC
several years ago showed that around 15% of households that have TVs are
OTA only. But there are also many millions of households who have cable
or satellite, that also have TVs in the kitchen, bedrooms, other rooms
that have OTA only for that TV. They use cable or satellite for the main
TV or TVs only and don't bother with a cable run or STB for some or all
of their secondary TVs.
No, free OTA is not going to go away. The NAB has made it's big
concession to give up UHF 52 to 69. They and the OTA public have enough
points & pull with congress to keep VHF 7 to UHF 51 for decades to come.
Low VHF 2 to 6 may go away or be consolidated to several channels at
some point because of few stations using those channels. But low VHF
with 3 to 5 meter wavelengths is not nearly as valuable for auction and
portable communications as the upper UHF channels.
Pass the word. ATSC 8-VSB works quite well despite what you may read
from one borderline/obsessed personality who posts here with the initial
of BM.
Alan F
NadCixelsyd
Bob keeps ignoring the fact that 8VSB is the law and my reception is
GREAT. Every week or so, he tells us how bad it's gonna be.
Now I may be in the minority, but when I saw how goooood OTA HDTV was,
I dumped cable. I'm not alone. Many people are reverting to OTA.
It's not a stampede, but with HD cable costing $1000 a year (with no
premium channels), some people are returning to OTA. OK, I don't get
ESPN, but I don't care about sports. I do miss some of the additional
programming on LIFE, AMC, TNT, etc, but it's not worth $1000 a year.
Matthew L. Martin
> In article <1185155437.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> NadCixelsyd <nadci...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Now I may be in the minority, but when I saw how goooood OTA HDTV was,
>> I dumped cable.
>
You keep jumping to that conclusion. That's probably the only exercise
you get.
valvejob
This is pure bullshit.
I dumped cable and dish and will stick with OTA HDTV.
It is growing like crazy and will really ramp up after 2008.
Why? Because commercial advertisers on OTA will start pulling in a
greater percentage of consumers than ever before.
.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:35:52 GMT, Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> wrote:
Sal M. Onella
"Bob Miller" <b...@viacel.com> wrote in message
news:Q9Joi.10837$zA4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Bruce Tomlin wrote:
< snip >
> > Guess what Bob... THOSE RABBIT EARS WILL STILL WORK.
>
> If they do there will not be a problem. I don't think they will work.
8VSB is working well for me. I live south of San Diego and I regularly get
OTA DTV from Los Angeles, 124 miles distant. Yesterday, I got KCBS-DT on a
rusty, old 2-bay bowtie in the eaves of my garage. The garage is on the
south side of the house, so the Ch. 60 signal had to get around the house
and pass through the garage wall to get to the antenna. The antenna frame
has four little feet on it and it's designed to sit on or near the TV it
serves.
With some freezes and tiling, it was crappy reception, to be sure -- that
little antenna usually serves me only for my "locals" and I was just goofing
around when KCBS-DT (ERP = 469 KW) appeared. I expect to have to use my
roof-mounted yagi for the LA stations.
My point is this: My vintage tuner locked a far-fringe signal received on a
pathetic antenna near ground level with an abundance of multipath riding on
it. Frankly, I don't see the problem.
"Sal"
Wes Newell
> Despite the fact that Bob 'zeal" sometimes gets in the way of his
> arguments - he is, and has been , mostly correct.
>
This actually made me laugh. Thanks.
> Its unfortunate, as OTA HD , with a good outside antenna is
> wonderfully.
>
Wonderfully what?
> Problem is, hardly anybody has an outside antenna anymore - just
> wander around your neighborhood, and tell me what percent of the homes
> have roof top antennas?
>
Most people don't need an outside antenna. Even at 40+ miles, I got
excelent reception with the antenna in the attic.
> Like Bob says - the american sheeple have not got a clue about the
> ATSC tuner built into their new chinese made flat panel TV. They hook
> it up to the cable TV box and wonder at the joys of a great big blurry
> picture.
Well, that's probably more true than not now. It won't be by 2009.
--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
Bob Miller
"comeback" in the US. In most other countries that have a digital
transition, HD or SD, OTA is kicking ass. In some countries it is the
fastest growing electronic product ever.
>
> |> | And with the prospect of selling off the rest, 294 MHz of spectrum now
> |> | occupied by Cable money myopic broadcasters, now planted in their minds,
> |> | new age, those ushered in as the Republican party implodes,
> |> | Congresscritters will have a field day with the prospect.
> |>
> |> Not at all likely to happen. And they know it will lead to a backlash
> |> that ends up reversing some of those auctions.
> |>
> | That should be an interesting legal prospect, taking back what was
> | legally purchased at auction and letting the current broadcasters play
> | with it for free for more years? Interesting lawsuits would ensue.
>
> Land can be taken by eminent domain, even when the purpose is to enhance
> some non-government use. I suggest two points. One that radio spectrum
> can be taken just as much as land, although only by the Feds. And that
> the original action of selling, rather than leasing, the spectrum is not
> even legal (because it is a rare resource and not literally owned by
> those who were selling it). If this is overturned, they most certainly
> would have to give the money back, with interest.
>
> Selling spectrum was definitely wrong. We'll learn that in the future
> when the government discovers it has no continuing revenue stream from it.
>
fact is that broadcasters "own" the spectrum with far more certainty
than you own your home. But technically they are purchasing a lease with
a renewal date. The ones we have are good for 15 years and renewal is
all but certain.
>
> |> And I bet you are so looking forward to this.
> |>
> | Why would I be looking forward to it? I have been warning that it would
> | happen for 9 years hoping to keep it from happening. I think that free
> | OTA TV is very important.
>
> No. You want to own a piece of it for yourself for your mobile services.
> You want to see OTA die so you can grab some.
>
> I predict OTA will still be around for at least 30 years. But who is
> providing it may well change.
>
If I want a piece of it I can buy it at the auctions coming up.
Unfortunately because the current broadcasters have been delaying the
transitions with things like 8-VSB, we have not been able to use our
spectrum. And we were not able to raise the money to buy far more since
the date of the transition was very risky in 2002. Now that the date
looks very certain we have competition from firms like Google that
promised to spend at least 4.6 billion on just 22 MHz.
The same spectrum went for pennies in earlier auctions of channels 54,
55 and 59. Total take was $147 million I think.
You are right OTA will be around forever but the present setup for
channels 2-51, free OTA as we have known it will die within a few years
of this transition IMO.
>
> |> | Didn't have to happen if they were a bit more hyperopia. If they had
> |> | been awake at the wheel when things like their DTV modulation
> |> | compression codec were being discussed.
> |>
> |> Everything that _is_ wrong with over the air TV broadcasting (and there is
> |> a lot, IMHO) has nothing to do with the modulation. It would be the same
> |> whether COFDM or even QAM.
> |>
> | Most modulations that use COFDM are QAM.
>
> FDM is just lots of little modulations in parallel. So what if each is
> QAM instead of something like VSB or QPSK.
>
That is what most modulations that use COFDM are, QAM.
>
> | And it has everything to do with the modulation. If the US had a decent
> | COFDM based QAM modulation there would be over 120 million OTA receivers
> | in use today in the US.
>
> The reason this might actually be true is not due to any technical
> benefit from the modulation here in the US, but rather, from the fact
> that manufacturers geared up for DVB chipsets and products first
> because the DVB market is larger.
>
Disagree, it is ALL because of the differences in technical
characteristics. If a COFDM modulation had been allowed in 2000,
virtually every US home would already have purchased freely an STB,
converter, USB receiver or integrated DTV device, portable or in house
by now.
We had a four year head start on the UK and the UK has sold over 20
million OTA receivers in a nation of 25 million households and the UK
DOES NOT EVEN HAVE THE DRAW THAT HD BRINGS TO THE EQUATION.
If you believe in HD then you must agree that the UK would have done far
better if they had HD than SD and they have done very well.
Not only that but in the UK you have to pay for FREEVIEW DTV. Quite a
lot in fact and still they have sold 20 million OTA receivers in a
nation of 25 million homes.
In the US we would have done far better, faster and we had far more
time. Virtually everyone in the US would already have an DTV OTA
receiver, Cable and satellite would be reeling and their prices would be
lower and your IPhone would offer HD on screen, by heads up display or
via an onboard projector.
>
> | And I mean in use not stuck in the back of integrated HDTV sets sold to
> | unsuspecting customers who have no idea they bought such a thing as an
> | OTA receiver.
> |
> | OTA would be wildly popular and would have promoted HD in the US and
> | around the world far more than the lack of OTA in the US has done.
> |
> | Broadcasters would be DOING mobile TV not trying to fix 8-VSB so that
> | maybe they can do mobile someday. They would be doing mobile HD and ED
> | and SD. The US would be the leaders in OTA DTV not the basket case we are.
>
> They _will_ be doing mobile on 700 MHz. It just won't be _you_ getting a
> piece of the action.
>
No broadcasters will not be doing mobile on 700MHz. They will be trying
to get mobile to work on 2-51 with 8-VSB while compromising HD there.
They will be selling content to mobile broadcasters yes.
No current broadcasters don't seem to have a clue with the exception of
Sinclair and a few others. In fact I expect in their confusion they will
start to sell out. Lin is already on the block as are others.
The smart ones will sell out before more attacks on their spectrum ensue.
>
> | Retailers would be featuring OTA solutions both fixed and mobile. Just
> | like in other countries where OTA DTV is the fastest growing electronic
> | wonder ever. Cable and satellite would be under pressure from OTA
> | offerings just like they are in the UK, Germany and other countries.
>
> When I managed to get the manager at a Circuit City store to hook up ONE
> TV to an outside antenna, and it happened to bring in some channels from
> other cities they had never gotten before, a couple of the sales guys
> who were standing by to see this miraculous event said stuff like "I didn't
> know it could do that" and "Gee, Bob Miller was wrong, afterall". :-)
>
I was wrong? I have said from the beginning that 8-VSB will be
receivable in 70% of cases as was demonstrated by the test of 2000. And
with better receivers it will do even better than that. Is that good
enough when there are far better modulations that virtually guarantee
good reception for everyone if we build out modern broadcast networks?
No it is not and those that will be free to use the best codecs and
modulation will show that in coming years marginalizing the broadcasters
on 2-51.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
True for a couple of million at the very most. What about the other 308
million?
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
plus will with 8-VSB and better receivers.
But many are not getting that good reception and many want other
channels that you can live without.
OTA could have provided all those channels if the broadcast network was
properly designed with a modern codec and modulation.
You would not have to give up anything and you could get it in your car
or boat.
What exactly is it that you get from 8-VSB that makes all those
sacrifices necessary? Why does the US have to give up half the carrying
capacity of the spectrum and fiddle with special antennas and rotors
when you don't have to?
How are you going to feel about the fact that lots of broadcast TV will
be sold to you over spectrum taken from broadcasters, channels above 51,
and they will only need antennas that fit in cell phones or laptops and
those antennas work everywhere?
What do we get for having to mess with inferior s**t?
Tell me what is it? If there is some offsetting benefit for using an
inferior codec and modulation OK. I don't know of any.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
It is growing like crazy???? Love to see those statistics.
Tantalust
>
>
> It (OTA HDTV) is growing like crazy???? Love to see those statistics.
I'd love to see Viacel's growth statistics.
Rick Evans
news:46a6ddab...@news.west.cox.net...
> Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Problem is, hardly anybody has an outside antenna anymore -
> just
> wander around your neighborhood, and tell me what percent of
> the homes
> have roof top antennas?
>
> Like Bob says - the american sheeple have not got a clue about
> the
> ATSC tuner built into their new chinese made flat panel TV.
If they bought one of the big HDTV monitors a few only a few
years ago they might be justified in believing tuners
were obsolete.
>They hook
> it up to the cable TV box and wonder at the joys of a great
> big blurry
> picture.
I'm one of those 'last grannies' that still uses an antenna.
It gives
me more than enough TV especially with the PBS HD and PBS
480i digital
channels. That said, I suspect most people use cable because
it has
the lion's share of sports programming and more channels in
general.
Finally, with compression, much of digital broadcast
programming can
hardly be described as crystal clear.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71ยฐ 04' 35.3"
Lat +42ยฐ 11' 06.7"
Ivan
Not only that but in the UK you have to pay for FREEVIEW DTV. Quite a
> lot in fact and still they have sold 20 million OTA receivers in a nation
> of 25 million homes.
Er, sorry to contradict you Bob but I think not, the clue is in the name
'FREE'view TV.
Freeview does however carry the option of being able to upgrade to something
called Top-up TV, which if the receiver is equipped with a card slot means
that for around ยฃ7.00 a month one can also subscribe to a variety of extra
channels.
There was also talk of Sky (Rupert Murdoch) who owns three of the channels
on Freeview wanting to encrypt and re-transmit them using Mpeg 4
http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/story/0,,-2080022,00.html which
will not only give him extra channel capacity but also of course would mean
that subscribers would have to purchase a completely new receiver.
However I can't see the powers that be allowing that, but perhaps they want
to sow a little bit of uncertainty, especially AIUI now that Freeview take
up has surpassed that of Sky.
>>>
> Bob Miller
numeric
<phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:f80ne...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Land can be taken by eminent domain, even when the purpose is to enhance
> some non-government use. I suggest two points. One that radio spectrum
> can be taken just as much as land, although only by the Feds. And that
> the original action of selling, rather than leasing, the spectrum is not
> even legal (because it is a rare resource and not literally owned by
> those who were selling it). If this is overturned, they most certainly
> would have to give the money back, with interest.
>
> Selling spectrum was definitely wrong. We'll learn that in the future
> when the government discovers it has no continuing revenue stream from it.
>
What is the cost to access our own property? I agree that selling the
spectrum is wrong. It may be overturned, but in the mean time the city,
state governments should consider the purchased spectrum as property that is
no different then land property, subject it to property taxes. After all,
the capitalist consider the RF spectrum as property. The local governments
could rake in significant revenues.
Jukka Aho
>> Not only that but in the UK you have to pay for FREEVIEW DTV.
> Er, sorry to contradict you Bob but I think not, the clue is in the
> name 'FREE'view TV.
I thought the UK still has tv licences... you can receive the
programming for, what, ยฃ135.50 per year?
<http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/>
--
znark
Ivan
"Jukka Aho" <jukk...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:UY7pi.196473$Lz.1...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
required to pay the full licence fee for the analogue BBC channels,
therefore one could look upon Freeview with all of the extra TV and radio
channels as a free bonus.
> --
> znark
>
Alan
>OK your happy with that and you get decent OTA reception like maybe 70%
>plus will with 8-VSB and better receivers.
>
>But many are not getting that good reception and many want other
>channels that you can live without.
>
>OTA could have provided all those channels if the broadcast network was
>properly designed with a modern codec and modulation.
No, it couldn't.
Those things don't change the Shannon-Hartley theorem ("Shannon's law")
of information theory.
>You would not have to give up anything and you could get it in your car
>or boat.
Since it is not possible in the first place, this is clearly wrong.
>What exactly is it that you get from 8-VSB that makes all those
>sacrifices necessary? Why does the US have to give up half the carrying
>capacity of the spectrum and fiddle with special antennas and rotors
>when you don't have to?
Because carrying capacity is not a fixed value. You claim there is
more carrying capacity, but you give up noise resistance to get there.
>How are you going to feel about the fact that lots of broadcast TV will
>be sold to you over spectrum taken from broadcasters, channels above 51,
>and they will only need antennas that fit in cell phones or laptops and
>those antennas work everywhere?
Small antennas work fine when the transmitter is around the corner.
How many transmitter sites are you willing to put up? Those things
get expensive, especially when the neighbors object. Remember, they
think that cell sites within a few blocks of a school are hazardous
to their children's health, and will fight you putting up any transmitter
in the area.
>What do we get for having to mess with inferior s**t?
>
>Tell me what is it? If there is some offsetting benefit for using an
>inferior codec and modulation OK. I don't know of any.
There could always be something better in the future. If we followed
that principle, we would still be watching monochrome television, never
having adopted a color system.
Instead, we chose the best system available now, and we have high definition
color that has much better performance than the NTSC systems provided.
Alan
phil-new...@ipal.net
| In article <f80ne...@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-new...@ipal.net
|
|> A clean solid picture has always been so
|> elusive with analog (especially analog on cable)
|
| analog pictures on cable for many, many years now.
Comcast. Before that a few other various companies.
Right now, about 4 channels are messed up. Fortunately I got that on
channels I don't really watch. If I were to call, they'd send a tech
out who would mess with the wires and amplifiers and break something
else instead. So at the moment I will leave well enough alone until
other routine maintenance breaks something I want to watch.
| In fact, for local stations the cable companies get fiber feeds directly
| from the studios. They don't just put up a $20 antenna and re-feed that
| to their subscribers.
They most certainly do not have fiber feeds for most local channels here.
I am watching their analog signals and I see frequency digital blocking
breakup during bad weather on some of the channels. So they appear to be
taking the digital signals and converting back to analog in these cases.
In one instance when a local network affiliate went out, I tuned in when
they were resetting the receiver and I watched all the menus they went
through for about a half-hour trying to get the picture size conversion
done right (that channel was going to carry the Indy 500, had been dead
for 2 days straight, and they managed to get it fixed 1 hour before the
race, after I called about a dozen times trying to insist to the CSRs that
it was a problem on their end and that I did not want a tech to come visit
the day after the race).
Cable was out for 2 hours again last night with no weather situation at
all that could cause it. Maybe an accident took out a pole? It is a
monthly (on average) or worse situation. Comcast service here is shit.
The only reason I don't jump to satellite is I have to have an STB to use
that service. I may end up doing so anyway.
phil-new...@ipal.net
A property tax on owned spectrum sounds like a good idea to me. But IMHO
only the Federal government can do that here in the USA.
Bob Miller
looking for TV sets that have not had their tax paid.
That makes "Freeview" appear in quotes.
Of course we also pay for our free TV via taxes that support PBS, Public
Broadcasting.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv numeric <num...@att.net> wrote:
> |
> | <phil-new...@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:f80ne...@news3.newsguy.com...
> |> Land can be taken by eminent domain, even when the purpose is to enhance
> |> some non-government use. I suggest two points. One that radio spectrum
> |> can be taken just as much as land, although only by the Feds. And that
> |> the original action of selling, rather than leasing, the spectrum is not
> |> even legal (because it is a rare resource and not literally owned by
> |> those who were selling it). If this is overturned, they most certainly
> |> would have to give the money back, with interest.
> |>
> |> Selling spectrum was definitely wrong. We'll learn that in the future
> |> when the government discovers it has no continuing revenue stream from it.
> |>
> |
> | What is the cost to access our own property? I agree that selling the
> | spectrum is wrong. It may be overturned, but in the mean time the city,
> | state governments should consider the purchased spectrum as property that is
> | no different then land property, subject it to property taxes. After all,
> | the capitalist consider the RF spectrum as property. The local governments
> | could rake in significant revenues.
>
> A property tax on owned spectrum sounds like a good idea to me. But IMHO
> only the Federal government can do that here in the USA.
>
in owning a piece of real estate.
Bob Miller
Ivan
But as I pointed out the system of paying for a radio/TV licence has been in
existence for generations (since the 1920s as far as I'm aware) and was not
adjusted in any way to pay for Freeview, although I believe that there were
some calls (happily resisted) for this to happen just after Freeview's
launch.
> Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> In article <0x2pi.11210$zA4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> writes:
>
>> OK your happy with that and you get decent OTA reception like maybe 70%
>> plus will with 8-VSB and better receivers.
>>
>> But many are not getting that good reception and many want other
>> channels that you can live without.
>>
>> OTA could have provided all those channels if the broadcast network was
>> properly designed with a modern codec and modulation.
>
> No, it couldn't.
>
> Those things don't change the Shannon-Hartley theorem ("Shannon's law")
> of information theory.
>
well with cable and satellite. Using the right codec you can deliver a
lot more than is being delivered with MPEG2. Delivering to DVR's can
open up 24/7 delivery of programming.
When you dissect what cable offers there is a lot of junk and redundancy.
OTA can also go where cable and satellite cannot.
Done right it is not even a contest. OTA wins as it is in many countries
today.
>
>> You would not have to give up anything and you could get it in your car
>> or boat.
>
> Since it is not possible in the first place, this is clearly wrong.
>
What is not possible?
>
>> What exactly is it that you get from 8-VSB that makes all those
>> sacrifices necessary? Why does the US have to give up half the carrying
>> capacity of the spectrum and fiddle with special antennas and rotors
>> when you don't have to?
>
> Because carrying capacity is not a fixed value. You claim there is
> more carrying capacity, but you give up noise resistance to get there.
>
COFDM was/is able to operate at a higher datarate mobile than 8-VSB is
able to handle fixed. This was demonstrated to Congress in 2000. DVB-T
COFDM mobile at 19.76 Mbps using and omni antenna for reception while
8-VSB was restricted to 19.34 Mbps using a directional antenna.
And even then the 8-VSB advocates were terrified that they were going to
lose reception.
>
>> How are you going to feel about the fact that lots of broadcast TV will
>> be sold to you over spectrum taken from broadcasters, channels above 51,
>> and they will only need antennas that fit in cell phones or laptops and
>> those antennas work everywhere?
>
> Small antennas work fine when the transmitter is around the corner.
>
> How many transmitter sites are you willing to put up? Those things
> get expensive, especially when the neighbors object. Remember, they
> think that cell sites within a few blocks of a school are hazardous
> to their children's health, and will fight you putting up any transmitter
> in the area.
>
More transmitter sites cost less, are far more reliable, self healing
and would not have gone off the air in 2001 when their only transmitter
was taken down. With multiple transmitter sites you can use reliable
solid state transmitters at very low power settings and you are not
restricted to using the highest point on the landscape. You can bargain
for much smaller spaces with multiple landlords or tower operators.
>
>> What do we get for having to mess with inferior s**t?
>>
>> Tell me what is it? If there is some offsetting benefit for using an
>> inferior codec and modulation OK. I don't know of any.
>
> There could always be something better in the future. If we followed
> that principle, we would still be watching monochrome television, never
> having adopted a color system.
>
No if we follow that principle we would be far more up to date today
than yesterday.
But we DO follow that principle when it comes to cable and satellite.
They are free to change their modulation or codec whenever it makes
business sense to do it or competitive pressures dictate it. They are
not wedded to an archaic technology for an indefinite future.
We talk free market until it comes to DTV then we talk of regulation in
its worst form. Mandates that force the public to buy something they
don't want or need for some BS reason that makes NO sense.
>
> Instead, we chose the best system available now, and we have high definition
> color that has much better performance than the NTSC systems provided.
>
No we ram through the worst system in a hurry to satisfy the short term
interest of ignorant CE manufacturers and in the end they lose also.
OTA with 8-VSB did not deliver the supposed windfall of excess profits
from the sale of HDTV sets.
The major driver of HDTV set sales was DVD's, flat screen technology
that allowed you to hang the TV on the wall, keeping up with the Joneses
and a number of other things.
OTA was and is NOT in the top ten on that list.
If anything the problems that OTA DTV has had over the last 9 years held
back HD both here and in the rest of the world.
Bob Miller
>
> Alan
>
>
common_
>In article <46a6ddab...@news.west.cox.net>,
> common_ se...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>> Like Bob says - the american sheeple have not got a clue about the
>> ATSC tuner built into their new chinese made flat panel TV. They hook
>> it up to the cable TV box and wonder at the joys of a great big blurry
>> picture.
>
>No, they don't hook it up at all. The cable guy hooks it up. And he
>does so using the coax out of the cable box into the antenna in on the
>TV, and the user tunes his new flat panel to channel 3, and it stays
>there. In mono.
>
LOL
I stand corrected,,its an even fuzzier picture.
LOL
cjdayton...@cox.net
> Of course we also pay for our free TV via taxes that support PBS, Public
> Broadcasting.
>
> Bob Miller
You are aware that the tax money received by PBS
has been drastically reduced over the years, yes?
Probably not, since you are stupid enough to keep
coming back here spewing your nonsense about how
your modulation scheme is better than any other.
How much money did you lose when we chose 8-VSB?
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
common_
>In article <f80ne...@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-new...@ipal.net
>wrote:
>
>> A clean solid picture has always been so
>> elusive with analog (especially analog on cable)
>
>I don't know what cable system you're using, but I've had clean solid
>analog pictures on cable for many, many years now.
>
>In fact, for local stations the cable companies get fiber feeds directly
>from the studios. They don't just put up a $20 antenna and re-feed that
>to their subscribers.
>
The analog cable quality really isn't a function of the front end feed
- its a function of the connection to your house.
In my neighborhood the analog cable is atrocious - ghosts, static, you
name it.
Its why I went with Direct TV - and now have a rock steady ghost free,
highly over compressed and macro blocking "all digital" picture,,lol
common_
>In article <f80ne...@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-new...@ipal.net
>wrote:
>
>> Selling spectrum was definitely wrong. We'll learn that in the future
>> when the government discovers it has no continuing revenue stream from it.
>
>Just wait until Google buys the 700MHz spectrum.
>
>http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9747799-7.html
>
I do not think once they sell the spectrum, they get any continuing
revenue from it?
Which is good, because they are running such huge budget surpluses,
and have no future social contract obligations,,,
common_
><common_ se...@netscape.com> wrote
>> Despite the fact that Bob 'zeal" sometimes gets in the way of his
>> arguments
>
>By 'zeal', do you mean money-losing-business-concept = vengeance-
>retaliation-reciprocation?
>
>>tell me what percent of the homes have roof top antennas?
>
>Are you and/or bob trying to imply that there's some heretofore unknown
>foreign DTV system where people only require indoor antennas? I'd really
>like to learn some more about that particular system.
>
>
>
>
I clearly typed "roof top" - as a benchmark as to how many of your
neighbors are watching OTA DTV.
What does only requiring indoor antennas have to do with that?
Yes there are "millions" of happy OTA DTV viewers - out a a market of
100s of millions.
Do the math.
common_
>In article <1185155437.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> NadCixelsyd <nadci...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Now I may be in the minority, but when I saw how goooood OTA HDTV was,
>> I dumped cable.
>
>So for you, it's picture quality over content quality. Right?
>
>You'd choose 10 channels of junk content--but high picture quality--over
>80 channels of average picture quality that stand a chance of delivering
>you decent programming when you sit down to it.
>
I wish there was 80 channels of decent content on my Direct TV.
I just do not have any room in the house for yet another Tech Bond
Diamonel necklace, or another George Forman grill,,-:)
common_
>
> This is pure bullshit.
>
> I dumped cable and dish and will stick with OTA HDTV.
>
> It is growing like crazy and will really ramp up after 2008.
>
> Why? Because commercial advertisers on OTA will start pulling in a
>greater percentage of consumers than ever before.
>.
>
>
Your economic model for this is?
98 percent of the viewers of those commercials do so on cable or sat.
nobody is watching analog OTA - why would a largely tech ignorant
public start a giant ground swell to watch HD OTA?
There are no statistics to support this - sad but its true.
Free OTA TV does not line the pockets of your so called "elected"
officials - Cox Communications, and Direct TV do.
common_
>Bob, you ignoring slut. Unklike Jane Curtin who was an ignorant slut,
>Bob keeps ignoring the fact that 8VSB is the law and my reception is
>GREAT. Every week or so, he tells us how bad it's gonna be.
>
>Now I may be in the minority, but when I saw how goooood OTA HDTV was,
>I dumped cable. I'm not alone. Many people are reverting to OTA.
>It's not a stampede, but with HD cable costing $1000 a year (with no
>premium channels), some people are returning to OTA. OK, I don't get
>ESPN, but I don't care about sports. I do miss some of the additional
>programming on LIFE, AMC, TNT, etc, but it's not worth $1000 a year.
>
your right - it aint worth a grand a year,,
But JQP Sheeple just throws it on the credit card (assuming one of his
ten plus are not maxed out).
as far as you not being alone - please post how many more of your
neighbors have also seen the light?
common_
>common_ se...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>> Problem is, hardly anybody has an outside antenna anymore - just
>> wander around your neighborhood, and tell me what percent of the homes
>> have roof top antennas?
>
> Except in the hinterlands and more challenging areas for reception,
>you can't really judge OTA ATSC reception by number of roof top
>antennas. With analog, you generally wanted the best possible signal,
>which meant at even medium range distances, you would go with a rooftop
>antenna. But with digital, so long as the signal strength is good enough
>for stable reception, you can use a attic or indoor antenna. As long you
>are far enough above the minimum signal strength for reception to
>maintain reception for the stations you want to get for bad weather or
>changing seasons, you are set.
>
> I have a Channel Master 4221 4 Bay bowtie and a CM pre-amp in the
>attic of my townhouse. If you walked by, you would have no clue that I
>had an antenna setup which picks up stations in DC at 16 miles,
>Baltimore stations at 43 miles, and a few other stations in other
>directions, including one at 48 miles. I could probably get a couple of
>more minor stations if I put the antenna up on the roof with a rotator.
>But I have a 3 story townhouse and the roof is way up there with no
>chimney to use for bracing. I have thought about putting the CM 4221 up
>on the roof, along with a Winegard YA6713 upper VHF antenna to prepare
>for the more distant local stations switching to upper VHF in 2009. But
>I would have to spend money on a professional installer and would have
>to deal with occasional maintenance issues. So I'm sticking with the
>attic for now.
>
> Lower profile antenna are also popular that mount on the side of the
>house. These may be mounted on the backside or a side of the house that
>is not visible or obvious from the street. Some of these low profile
>antennas are not very good and are overpriced, but if they are good
>enough to get a stable signal, then they are good enough for the job at
>hand.
>
> Despite what Bob may think, stats from a major survey done for the FCC
>several years ago showed that around 15% of households that have TVs are
>OTA only. But there are also many millions of households who have cable
>or satellite, that also have TVs in the kitchen, bedrooms, other rooms
>that have OTA only for that TV. They use cable or satellite for the main
>TV or TVs only and don't bother with a cable run or STB for some or all
>of their secondary TVs.
>
> No, free OTA is not going to go away. The NAB has made it's big
>concession to give up UHF 52 to 69. They and the OTA public have enough
>points & pull with congress to keep VHF 7 to UHF 51 for decades to come.
>Low VHF 2 to 6 may go away or be consolidated to several channels at
>some point because of few stations using those channels. But low VHF
>with 3 to 5 meter wavelengths is not nearly as valuable for auction and
>portable communications as the upper UHF channels.
>
> Pass the word. ATSC 8-VSB works quite well despite what you may read
>from one borderline/obsessed personality who posts here with the initial
>of BM.
>
> Alan F
>
>
Did anywhere in my post say that 8-VSB does not work well?
My point was - market penetration, which unfortunately is bizarrely
low for any type of OTA TV, and once the Analog goes away, taking with
it tens of millions of "secondary TVs" its only going to get worse.
good thing - NO
Happening - Yes
common_
>In article <9iBoi.9473$rR....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> wrote:
>
>> Or are you suggesting that
>> Congress is going to hire a fleet, I should say FLEETS, of installation
>> vans and crews to try to install millions of rooftop antennas for those
>> subsidized DTV converter boxes?
>
>If they weren't already watching OTA analog, why would they suddenly
>need to start watching OTA digital? And if they were already watching
>OTA analog, they already have either a roof antenna or (more likely)
>rabbit ears.
>
>Guess what Bob... THOSE RABBIT EARS WILL STILL WORK.
There is almost nobody now watching OTA TV as a primary source of TV
access.
Congress apparently could care less about an endless war of personal
revenge, millions going hungry in the world richest country, and tens
of millions lacking basic medical care and life saving drugs.
So why would should they care about OTA free TV reception - that isn't
going to enrich their campaign coffers, nor give them million dollar a
year "consultant" contracts after they leave office.
common_
>In article <46af872a...@news.west.cox.net>,
> common_ se...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>> In my neighborhood the analog cable is atrocious - ghosts, static, you
>> name it.
>
>In my neighborhood we've had wired cable competition for about 10 years,
>and the analog cable signal is great--on both systems.
>
>As is the price. Competition works.
>
so how much over the official inflation rate have the wired companies
in your area increased rates..competition wise?
competition works - in a free economy,,we do not live in a free
economy, we live in a capitalistic Autocracy.
Sal M. Onella
>
> nobody is watching analog OTA - why would a largely tech ignorant
> public start a giant ground swell to watch HD OTA?
>
> There are no statistics to support this - sad but its true.
>
No, my man, it's NOT true.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3
f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=48839bc66a961110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD
According to Nielson, 87% of TV households have either digital cable,
satellite or "specialized antenna" (community antenna system, a microwave
sysytem, etc). Thus, of the approximately 113-million TV households in the
US, over 14-million are watching with an antenna. If this is nobody (your
word), I suggest you not try to have them all over for Thanksgiving Dinner.
I am 64 years old and I remember the surge of antenna sales when this
country took to color television. Although color was broadcast sporadically
in the US starting in 1954, it took until the 1966-67 TV season for things
to really take off. (NBC going all-color in 1965 really sealed the deal for
the other networks.)
A watchable crappy rabbit-ears picture in black and white became unwatchable
in color. Hence, vigorous antenna sales. OTA HDTV could result in the same
thing. We'll see.
Matthew L. Martin
Please not to be confusing the "my opinion is fact" posters with "facts
from real life". They don't seem to be able to deal with them.
Matthew
--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Matthew L. Martin
> valvejob <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> This is pure bullshit.
>>
>> I dumped cable and dish and will stick with OTA HDTV.
>>
>> It is growing like crazy and will really ramp up after 2008.
>>
>> Why? Because commercial advertisers on OTA will start pulling in a
>> greater percentage of consumers than ever before.
>> .
>>
>>
>
> Your economic model for this is?
>
> 98 percent of the viewers of those commercials do so on cable or sat.
That is a brown statistic. You pulled it out of your ass. Depending on
who you believe something between 26 and 39 percent of all TVs are OTA
only. Yes, they are in households with either cable or satellite
service, but they are dependent on OTA signals.
Try the FCC website for the information that they have. It is certainly
more correct than your fantasy.
common_
Your Nielsen stats in no way support your arguments..
The OTA stats you quote include pay OTA local MW service to large Apt
complexes.
Nothing at all to do with HD OTA.
Yea , at 64 you probably "remember" lots of things that were not true.
common_
>In article <46b8913b...@news.west.cox.net>,
> common_ se...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>> >In my neighborhood we've had wired cable competition for about 10 years,
>> >and the analog cable signal is great--on both systems.
>> >
>> >As is the price. Competition works.
>> >
>> so how much over the official inflation rate have the wired companies
>> in your area increased rates..competition wise?
>>
>> competition works - in a free economy,,we do not live in a free
>> economy, we live in a capitalistic Autocracy.
>
>Well, in this case competition works.
>
>My rates have gone up zero in the last four years. They keep feeding me
>"promotional" rates that "expire" every January. And every January I
>call back, competitive flier in hand, and end up getting that
>"promotional" rate back.
>
>For the last four years, I've paid $60/month for straight cable TV (no
>box, although I'm eligible for one) and 6 megabit broadband. And on
>that cable I now get, let me think here, 10 QAM digital channels--some
>of which actually come across in HD at least some of the time--in
>addition to the 80 or so analog channels (about 8 of the digital
>channels are repeated in the analog tier).
>
>So spew the gibberish you want, competition works. That YOU don't have
>the benefits I have in this arena, doesn't mean competition doesn't work.
>
I live in Phoenix Az - the most competitive delivery areas in the
country.
Sorry if I have to doubt your numbers - but you are the same poster
that believes that there is this huge pot of money that you "paid
into" at the center of the earth, that's going to pay your SS and
Medicare benefits.
Sorry but Math is Math,,and your do not know Math.
Cable and Sat Bills hae been increasing at 3 times the "published"
inflation rates - not to mention medical and energy cost going up at 7
times.
common_
excuse me,,,
but why would people with sat or cable service be "dependent" on
OTA..?
Matthew L. Martin
Simple. Can't you figure it out for yourself?
No?
How about those people who don't pay to hook every TV in their house to
a pay service?
Are you really that stupid or are you attempting a troll?
Matthew L. Martin
So those who receive their signals OTA who use a CATV aren't really
using OTA? RIGHT!
> Yea , at 64 you probably "remember" lots of things that were not true.
That seems fair. You seem to "know" lots of things, but are more often
wrong than right.
G-squared
wrote:
> > nobody is watching analog OTA - why would a largely tech ignorant
> > public start a giant ground swell to watch HD OTA?
>
> > There are no statistics to support this - sad but its true.
>
> No, my man, it's NOT true.
>
Uh, that would be CBS in '65. NBCs first color show was the 1954 Rose
Parade.
CBS made a good choice by delaying in that they had an all new
infrastructure. The later tape machines and cameras were considerably
better in '65 compared to the late '50s gear.
But I take your point.
GG
common_
I want OTA HD digital TV to succeed,,
I keep getting flamed though for posting the truth that it isn't
succeeding.
If you want it to succeed - get off your free loading ases and make it
happen.
don't blame me for posting the truth.
It costs major money to go HD - so giving it away is a business model
that can work?
Sal M. Onella
<common_ se...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:46a8a311...@news.west.cox.net...
> Your Nielsen stats in no way support your arguments..
The one stat was not intended to support everything. 14 million is just a
number, a non-zero number. Ahem!
> The OTA stats you quote include pay OTA local MW service to large Apt
> complexes.
Actually, I specifically stated microwave was in the 87% portion.
> Nothing at all to do with HD OTA.
>
> Yea , at 64 you probably "remember" lots of things that were not true.
I didn't want to clog my post with references to what I looked up before I
made my (accurate) assertions about color TV growth, the only remotely
parallel event to the current OTA digital/HDTV transition. Next time I'll
clog.
Ah, knocking my content because of my age, eh? Well, you aren't the first
kid who ever stepped on his crank (and you won't be the last).
common_
well if you included microwave - which I seem to be not able to find
in your post, you are still wrong.
At best - OTA viewers is less than 2 percent, and falling.
I wish it was more, but it is not, It simply is not - you may want it
to be but it is not. It should be, yes, but it is, not.
Real question/issue is how to make your imaginary figures real before
it is to late.
Calling those that post the accurate numbers about something, names,
is not going to make the figures go away.
Now figuring out how to increase those numbers - thats productive.
and I am no spring chicken baby - can take you on whenever (assuming I
don't fall asleep first,,LOL)).
Sal M. Onella
"G-squared" <stra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185334513.2...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
< snip >
>
> Uh, that would be CBS in '65. NBCs first color show was the 1954 Rose
> Parade.
I may not have gotten it all correct. I guess NBC went all color in 1966,
but CBS began the 1966 - 67 season still with some B&W shows. I recall
seeing my first "What's My Line" in color and I know where I was, Oklahoma,
where I lived for only a few months, spanning the summer and fall of 1966.
[Ref: "Color episodes on a regular basis would not begin however until ...
the September 11, 1966 episode, resulting of the show's move to CBS Studio
50, now known as The Ed Sullivan Theater." -
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/4439/wml50.html ]
This --> http://novia.net/~ereitan/rca-nbc_firsts.html is a fascinating
timeline, especially for NBC details.
http://www.tvobscurities.com/articles/color60s.php ain't too shabby, either.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833589,00.html?promoid=goog
lep is a relevant 40+ y/o clip from Time Magazine.
Wes Newell
> I want OTA HD digital TV to succeed,,
>
It has already succeeded, with over 90% of local stations already
broadcasting it for years now. I've been watching for a couple of years,
and others have been watching it since 1999.
> I keep getting flamed though for posting the truth that it isn't
> succeeding.
>
The only thing you are posting is opinions and fud.
> If you want it to succeed - get off your free loading ases and make it
> happen.
>
And just what do you expect anyone reading this newsgroup to do?
> don't blame me for posting the truth.
>
Rest assured, I don't think anyone is charging you with that.:-)
> It costs major money to go HD - so giving it away is a business model
> that can work?
All OTA TV is advertiser driven. Those are very deep pockets. And I've got
some other news for you. it cost a lot less now for HDTV equipment than
regular analog equipment cost 20 years ago. You're out of your mind if you
think free ota TV is going to die out anytime soon. I'll garauntee I'll
die before it does, and I hope to make another 10 years.
--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
Del Mibbler
>I am 64 years old and I remember the surge of antenna sales when this
>country took to color television. Although color was broadcast sporadically
>in the US starting in 1954, it took until the 1966-67 TV season for things
>to really take off. (NBC going all-color in 1965 really sealed the deal for
>the other networks.)
>
>A watchable crappy rabbit-ears picture in black and white became unwatchable
>in color. Hence, vigorous antenna sales. OTA HDTV could result in the same
>thing. We'll see.
>
It could, but I doubt it. When color TV started to be popular, most
people got their TV OTA or not at all. Cable existed, but it wasn't
widespread. Also, the color set makers and program providers promoted
it. NBC started each color show with "The following program is
brought to you in living color on NBC" while the peacock furled its
ugly diamond-pointed B&W tail feathers, you could see the color
(shades of gray on a B&W set) seep into them, then it unfurled them in
color with the more familiar rounded blobs at the tips. Watching in
B&W, you just knew you were missing a great experience.
Over on ABC, the Quinn-Martin shows' announcer would intone, for
example, "The Fugitive . . . in color!" or "The Invaders . . . in
color!" (well parodied years later in the opening of "Police Squad,"
made when everything was in color).
Now people are accustomed to getting 100 or more channels on cable or
satellite, and they're not likely to give that up even though they
never watch most of them.
Of the 6 local stations broadcasting in digital, I think I saw
announcements for maybe two of them when they started. I almost never
see local ads for digital tuners or DVRs other than as part of a
satellite package or (now) built into a TV. Meanwhile there have been
a ton of ads for upconverting DVD players, which many buyers probably
think will show their DVDs in HD.
I've talked with several friends and relatives who were completely
unaware that it is possible to get HD television over the air. Or
from cable, without upgrading their existing package. Most are
confused about what the switch to digital broadcasting will mean, if
they even know it's going to happen.
In early 1994, having read that one station had started digital
broadcasting (it turned out that all but two had, and those two were
in digital on cable), I saw an ad from a local high-end A/V shop for
an LG HD DVR. I thought, "That's what I've been waiting for," and
headed to the store ready to pay the $1000 they wanted for it. But
they didn't have any in stock. Maybe next week. I waited two weeks,
they still didn't have any, so I bought it online and saved a couple
hundred bucks. I later learned they never intended to stock it,
although they could order one for me.
Most people won't go through all that. They want to go into a store
and have a knowledgeable salesperson show them what is available and
what they can do with it, and give them several options at different
price points. That rarely happens.
The FCC was right to require digital tuners in sets that have tuners,
because it wasn't going to happen otherwise. So people who buy new
receivers will at least have the hardware to get broadcasts if they
know enough to try. But I just don't see an OTA surge happening.
Del Mibbler
Del Mibbler
>In early 1994, having read that one station had started digital
>broadcasting . . .
Ummm . . . make that 2004. How come I never spot these things BEFORE
I hit the SEND key?
Del Mibbler
Matthew L. Martin
> In article <Qnzpi.432$ko2...@newsfe12.lga>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <not...@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>>> but why would people with sat or cable service be "dependent" on
>>> OTA..?
>> Simple. Can't you figure it out for yourself?
>>
>> No?
>>
>> How about those people who don't pay to hook every TV in their house to
>> a pay service?
>
> you're deliberately ignoring that--or else you're tres stupid.
>
Hardly. Go look up the statistic on the FCC website instead of spouting
your opinions as "true facts".
Tantalust
> "Tantalust" <tant...@paradise.net> wrote:
>>common_ se...@netscape.com> wrote
>>> Despite the fact that Bob 'zeal" sometimes gets in the way of his
>>> arguments
>>
>>By 'zeal', do you mean money-losing-business-concept = vengeance-
>>retaliation-reciprocation?
>>
>>>tell me what percent of the homes have roof top antennas?
>>
>>foreign DTV system where people only require indoor antennas? I'd really
>>like to learn some more about that particular system.
> I clearly typed "roof top" - as a benchmark as to how many of your
> neighbors are watching OTA DTV.
Why would only a rooftop antenna [your "benchmark", lol ] clearly indicate
an OTA user?
> Yes there are "millions" of happy OTA DTV viewers - out a a market of
> 100s of millions.
We know, we know . . . . . . let's provide our spectrum to the mobile
maroons and destroy our free OTA HDTV (And BTW, isn't that the developing
situation right now in Europe?)
Tantalust
Why does bob's particular writing style keep popping-up in "your" postings?
Bob Miller
it must be me.
Bob Miller
cjdayton...@cox.net
> In other words he agrees with me. If someone agrees with anything I say
> it must be me.
>
> Bob Miller
To some extent, yes. You are such a whack job
that virtually no one could agree with you.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Tantalust
news:mIKpi.10575$rR....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
He has two distinctly different writing styles.
One his, one yours.
Who is he bob, a relative?
Thumper
<salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> nobody is watching analog OTA - why would a largely tech ignorant
>> public start a giant ground swell to watch HD OTA?
>>
>> There are no statistics to support this - sad but its true.
>>
>
>No, my man, it's NOT true.
>
>http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3
>f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=48839bc66a961110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD
>
>According to Nielson, 87% of TV households have either digital cable,
>satellite or "specialized antenna" (community antenna system, a microwave
>sysytem, etc). Thus, of the approximately 113-million TV households in the
>US, over 14-million are watching with an antenna. If this is nobody (your
>word), I suggest you not try to have them all over for Thanksgiving Dinner.
>
>I am 64 years old and I remember the surge of antenna sales when this
>country took to color television. Although color was broadcast sporadically
>in the US starting in 1954, it took until the 1966-67 TV season for things
>to really take off. (NBC going all-color in 1965 really sealed the deal for
>the other networks.)
>
>A watchable crappy rabbit-ears picture in black and white became unwatchable
>in color. Hence, vigorous antenna sales. OTA HDTV could result in the same
>thing. We'll see.
>
That surge for color happened when there wasn't any alternative
delivery system.
Thumper
Thumper
<not...@notnow.never> wrote:
They don't hook up every tv because they hardly use those tvs. They
probably won't use them at all when analog goes away.
Thumper
Wes Newell
> In article <Qnzpi.432$ko2...@newsfe12.lga>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <not...@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>> > but why would people with sat or cable service be "dependent" on
>> > OTA..?
>>
>> Simple. Can't you figure it out for yourself?
>>
>> No?
>>
>> How about those people who don't pay to hook every TV in their house to
>> a pay service?
>
> One doesn't have to pay to hook every TV to a pay service, but then
> you're deliberately ignoring that--or else you're tres stupid.
You're going to find many different opinions on this, but I think anyone
that pays for sat or cable and has access to free OTA ATSC is stupid.:-)
My reasoning ot use free OTA HDTV is real simple.
1. It's free.
2. The picture quality is better than you can get with sat or cable.
3. There's more on than I can watch in a day (being able to record as many
shows as I want).
4. Don't need special crap to record it. No encryption, etc.,etc.
5. There's nothing on cable or sat that won't eventually end up on regular
TV with the exception of sports events, with major events usually
broadcast anyway, and possibly cooking with the fat ass chef or some other
crap that 99% of people don't care about anyway.
6. The service is better.
Wes Newell
> In other words he agrees with me. If someone agrees with anything I say
> it must be me.
>
> Bob Miller
Either that or another fudster preaching doom.
Bob Miller
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:22 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> In other words he agrees with me. If someone agrees with anything I say
>> it must be me.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>
> Either that or another fudster preaching doom.
>
out that the present is not as good as it could be or should be
pertaining to OTA DTV on channels 2-51 in the US.
If we change the codec and modulation then things will be a lot better
right away. If we don't then there will be some period of time before
the free OTA DTV we have now is replaced with new offerings by those who
will buy the spectrum at future auctions and use it with up to date
codecs and modulation and maybe even free OTA.
No the future will be better for OTA either way. It is only the present
use of 8-VB and how long it last that is an issue.
Bob Miller
cjdayton...@cox.net
You are fucking delusional, Bob.
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:22 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> In other words he agrees with me. If someone agrees with anything I say
>>> it must be me.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>
>> Either that or another fudster preaching doom.
>>
> I am not preaching doom. The future will be better. I am only pointing
> out that the present is not as good as it could be or should be
> pertaining to OTA DTV on channels 2-51 in the US.
>
I've been using it for close to 2 years now and I don't know how it could
get any better. The picture quality is better than sat or cable. Not sure
about fios since I haven't seen fios tv yet. And what do you call your
tiltle for this thread "The End of Free OTA" if you don't call it
preaching doom?
> If we change the codec and modulation then things will be a lot better
> right away. If we don't then there will be some period of time before
> the free OTA DTV we have now is replaced with new offerings by those who
> will buy the spectrum at future auctions and use it with up to date
> codecs and modulation and maybe even free OTA.
>
Not this crap again. 8VSB is right for the terrain of the US. You can
change the modulation all you want and it's not going to get any better.
It's perfect right now with 8VSB. We all know you wanted your modulation
to win. It didn't. It's not going to change in my or your lifetime. Get
over it. Move on.
> No the future will be better for OTA either way. It is only the present
> use of 8-VB and how long it last that is an issue.
>
Only for you Bob. Everyone else is more than happy with it. And it's not
going to change so quit wearing out your fingers.
Matthew L. Martin
How interesting. You know this, how?
Bill's News
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-8883C7....@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article
> <1185155437.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> NadCixelsyd <nadci...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Now I may be in the minority, but when I saw how goooood OTA
>> HDTV was,
>> I dumped cable.
>
> So for you, it's picture quality over content quality. Right?
>
> You'd choose 10 channels of junk content--but high picture
> quality--over
> 80 channels of average picture quality that stand a chance of
> delivering
> you decent programming when you sit down to it.
>
It's easy to become a high def, wide screen junkie. And yes, on
a content quality scale of 0-9, I'd probably watch an HD6 in
lieu of a contemporary SD7, after checking the availability
(present or future) and format of the SD show on NetFlix,
perhaps mitigated by when the HD show will rerun.
On the other hand, Bill Maher's recent stand-up on HBO was
somewhat unpleasant to watch in HD, as his lipstick and pancake
caught focus more than some of his material. He finally licked
and sweated it off and the rest of his material improved
accordingly. Others I know, who watched the show in SD, didn't
notice this - so SD may have its plus side.
At the moment (summer of '07) TV content seems to be universally
below 5 and my sets mostly remain off, save when the NetFlix
shipments arrive.
The announced coming of increased satellite HD offerings in fall
season will definitely have me switching, if the cable provider
does not respond competitively. I also have ATSC reception
which is preferred for even the redundant-with-cable HD
channels; the antenna will remain active after the switch.
Some contemporary shows which, having sampled, I think I'll
enjoy, but are only available here in 4:3 SD, are just
automatically put in the NF queue for whenever they become
available. This is not because I order HD discs, but because
the DVDs, in addition to being commercial free, are 16:9. 16:9
format SD telecasts, if they have to be received SD, are
acceptable.
In fairness, even before widescreen HD TVs were installed here,
I've always preferred wide to 4:3.
Alan
>I am not preaching doom. The future will be better. I am only pointing
>out that the present is not as good as it could be or should be
>pertaining to OTA DTV on channels 2-51 in the US.
>
>If we change the codec and modulation then things will be a lot better
>right away.
Nonsense. If we changed the codec and modulation tomorrow, all digital
television sets and settop receivers would quit working.
It does not sound like a step forward to me.
> If we don't then there will be some period of time before
>the free OTA DTV we have now is replaced with new offerings by those who
>will buy the spectrum at future auctions and use it with up to date
>codecs and modulation and maybe even free OTA.
First you spent years complaining about 8VSB modulation. Now,
you have added complaining about MPEG2.
Both are working quite well.
Alan
numeric
> Problem is, hardly anybody has an outside antenna anymore - just
> wander around your neighborhood, and tell me what percent of the homes
> have roof top antennas?
>
Doug and Carrie's house has an outside OTA antenna ;-).
Yellowbeard
wrote:
> In article <Qnzpi.432$ko2....@newsfe12.lga>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <noth...@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> > > but why would people with sat or cable service be "dependent" on
> > > OTA..?
>
> > Simple. Can't you figure it out for yourself?
>
> > No?
>
> > How about those people who don't pay to hook every TV in their house to
> > a pay service?
>
> you're deliberately ignoring that--or else you're tres stupid.
Here where I live (southern arizona) every local station now has
digital
broadcast. Most people watch them on cable, some watch on
Dishnetwork,
they carry the locals for $5.99 a month.
Since I got my HDTV about a month ago, I watch all my locals OTA.
It is so much better. I have compared the cable digital, and
Dishnetwork local digital. Friends have both in HD by the way.
The OTA is cleaner, sharper, more vivid. No cable or sat processing,
just
straight into my antennae to my tuner, in glorious VIVID HD.
my 2 ยข
YB
Thumper
7. You're a cheap bastard.
Obviously people who subscribe to cable or satellite want more than
the meager fare offered on network tv.
Thumper
Bob Miller
handle twice the content and as they mature will be able to handle four
times the content of MPEG2.
This was known at the time MPEG2 was chosen. MPEG2 was chosen to cement
in the IP royalty rights of players with lobbyist and lots of money.
This is not true of OTA's competition, cable and satellite, where they
can and are changing to better codecs to deliver more content in the
same infrastructure.
The decision to use MPEG2 and allow no upgrade path to already known and
far better codecs is just another example of the consumer getting
screwed. This protects cable and satellite from competition and allows
the compromised, conflicted broadcasters to get paid for their free OTA
content on cable and satellite.
The conflict of interest that broadcasters have with must carry now that
they have decided to cash in on cable and satellite suggest that they
should either have their spectrum or must carry rights taken away.
And they will, one or the other. If it is must carry then you will hear
howls of pain about modulation and codec. If it is spectrum then new
owners will use better codecs and modulation.
Since MPEG2 barely allows the broadcast of 1080i and many including
myself will suggest cannot carry 1080i and cannot carry 1080-60P for
sure, it would be nice if we had and upgrade path to better codecs.
To suggest that it makes sense to restrict the upgrade path to better
codecs to pay off political corrupt Congresscritters and the payees
borders on insane.
Sort of like the Patty Hearst kidnap syndrome where captives identify
with their oppressors. We in the US now find all kinds of excuses to
explain why we let these guys pick our pockets because we are their
captives.
The DTV spectrum, channels 2-51, are devalued both to broadcasters and
the public at the present by 50% and later by 75% by the continued use
of MPEG2.
Doesn't matter to broadcasters because they have bought into the cable
and satellite cash flow scheme and only lose money every time someone
uses OTA.
Does matter to the public because they are being deprived of a
competitor to cable and satellite, both free OTA and pay OTA. The public
is deprived of better delivered HD content and more content.
If MPEG4 or better codecs were used along with a decent modulation we
would see a rebirth of competition for cable and satellite like we see
in many other countries.
I have advocated for using a better codec than MPEG2 since 1999. It is
not something new. It has always been both modulation and codec.
Bob Miller
Bob Miller
> In article <hvOpi.10846$tj6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net> Bob Miller <b...@viacel.com> writes:
>
>> I am not preaching doom. The future will be better. I am only pointing
>> out that the present is not as good as it could be or should be
>> pertaining to OTA DTV on channels 2-51 in the US.
>>
>> If we change the codec and modulation then things will be a lot better
>> right away.
>
> Nonsense. If we changed the codec and modulation tomorrow, all digital
> television sets and settop receivers would quit working.
>
modulation and codec would be better RIGHT AWAY.
Bob Miller
cjdayton...@cox.net
> modulation and codec would be better RIGHT AWAY.
>
> Bob Miller
This is further proof that you are insane.
Tantalust
Here's a nice, unchallenging, easy-to-read website that explains some of our
DTV system's history.
Thought you might like to learn (a little).
Did you know you can use your mouse to "turn on" the little blue blocks near
the top of the screen?* You can learn _even more_ about our DTV standard
that way! Some fun!
http://www.atsc.org/history.html
*Push down (v) on the little square on the upper left area of your mouse.
dmaster
...
> >> If we change the codec and modulation then things will be a lot better
> >> right away.
>
> > Nonsense. If we changed the codec and modulation tomorrow, all digital
> > television sets and settop receivers would quit working.
>
> Nothing is happening with OTA now. Virtually dead. A change in
> modulation and codec would be better RIGHT AWAY.
>
> Bob Miller
Shirley }:) you jest. I mean: you can't be serious, Bob? Have you
actually thought about the market impact of your suggestion? We'd all
be back at the beginning with no receivers and no transmitters,
potentially for years. All the ATSC tuners currently in use would
soon become worthless. Personally, I would have to replace the 4
tuners I use on a regular basis. Since I'm not a fan of more STBs,
I'm not going to like getting them. The only other option is to
replace two TVs, a DVR, and a DVD Recorder. I'm not about to spend
the money to repurchase those expensive components after such a short
interval of use. Heck, I've been waiting for a DVD recorder with an
integrated ATSC tuner for a couple of years, and only now are they
available. But most importantly, you want to throw out a system *THAT
WORKS FOR MOST OF US*!
If you can't see how that would be the death sentence for OTA TV, you
aren't terribly imaginative. Or worse. Of course some might claim
your entire hope *is* to destroy OTA TV, but I'll leave that to the
more conspiracy minded among us.
Dan (Woj...)
Wes Newell
Because I don't pay for something I don't need or want? Nice reasoning.
> Obviously people who subscribe to cable or satellite want more than
> the meager fare offered on network tv.
I'asked several cable/sat subscribers about why they have the service. Not
one has said because of the programimg. ALL have said (erroneously)
because that's the only way they can TV. Not a single one of the people I
asked even had an antenna, and none of them knew they could get HDTV free
OTA. Most of them watched the local channels over the service more than
they watched the so called premium channels. My brother has bitched about
the quality of his TV service for years. He's tried cable, DIrecTV, and
last I checked he had Dish network. He was going to switch to FIOS when
that ran out. He had HD with dishnet to start but switched back to regular
because the picture quality was so bad and he couldn't record with his old
dvr (really, just didn;'t know how to).