Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q: Why are ota hdtv tuners so freakin' expensive?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 8:01:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The very cheapest ota hdtv tuner I have found is $400.
What is in these boxes to justify that price? Why would
the general public migrate from ntsc to atsc when the
equipment is so expensive? If I understand correctly,
aren't we supposed to be doing that by 2007 or something?

Thanks
Cameron
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 2:47:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:57f880lm92n0r50ld3honcc5phuasc10q4@4ax.com...
> The very cheapest ota hdtv tuner I have found is $400.
> What is in these boxes to justify that price? Why would
> the general public migrate from ntsc to atsc when the
> equipment is so expensive? If I understand correctly,

Pricegrabber.com says that the least expensive ones are under $300. In
fact, faithful followers of Fatwallet.com will remember that about two
months ago, Best Buy was clearancing a couple models of HDTV tuner for under
$100, notably the Samsung SIR-T151, which I purchased. Newer models of
tuner are often more expensive because they add new consumer-requested
features such as cable-TV decoding (QAM, in addition to the 8VSB that
broadcast uses) and analog tuning (for channels whose digital signal is too
weak).

Ironically, within a month after buying the Samsung SIR-T151, I purchased a
scratch-'n'-dent Zenith C32V37 HDTV for $375, which includes its own tuner.
I was then able to give the T151 to a friend.
April 20, 2004 3:21:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

They're that expensive because people will pay that much for them. Just
like DVD players used to be $500.

They'll be commodity cheapo boxes long before 2007/


"George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:57f880lm92n0r50ld3honcc5phuasc10q4@4ax.com...
>
> The very cheapest ota hdtv tuner I have found is $400.
> What is in these boxes to justify that price? Why would
> the general public migrate from ntsc to atsc when the
> equipment is so expensive? If I understand correctly,
> aren't we supposed to be doing that by 2007 or something?
>
> Thanks
> Cameron
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:48:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Watch for deals. I got a Samsung SIR-T151 at Best Buy for $99. It works
great for OTA DTV.

George Thorogood wrote:
> The very cheapest ota hdtv tuner I have found is $400.
> What is in these boxes to justify that price? Why would
> the general public migrate from ntsc to atsc when the
> equipment is so expensive? If I understand correctly,
> aren't we supposed to be doing that by 2007 or something?
>
> Thanks
> Cameron
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 3:08:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:21:43 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote:

>They're that expensive because people will pay that much for them. Just
>like DVD players used to be $500.
>
>They'll be commodity cheapo boxes long before 2007/

Hey. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I remember those days. But I have
never understood that kind of economics. If the cheapest is $300 regularly,
I think they would sell a great deal more than 3 times more units at $100.
And thus make more money, which is the whole point. For example, I (and
two other guys I know) want an ota receiver. But I am not paying $300 for
one. If I could get one for $100, that is acceptable. Guess I will just
have to wait and keep an eye out for deals.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:o bia80tb1tmg2ehubkuv4tsn937tu4i7r2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:21:43 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >They're that expensive because people will pay that much for them. Just
> >like DVD players used to be $500.
> >
> >They'll be commodity cheapo boxes long before 2007/
>
> Hey. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I remember those days. But I have
> never understood that kind of economics. If the cheapest is $300
regularly,
> I think they would sell a great deal more than 3 times more units at $100.

Of course they would. They would be able to give away millions if they were
free. It's called price elasticity.

> And thus make more money, which is the whole point.

Reducing the price doesn't magically reduce the cost. If you can't make
money at $100 you won't be in business very long. If you can come up with a
better mousetrap people will flock to your door. There will be more and more
competition and costs will drop, but it will take time.

Brad H
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 10:17:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

They are expensive because the manufacturers do not think there is a big
market for them. They do not see demand, retailers don't want to stock
them and customers are not buying them.

If manufacturers believed that the market was large they could ramp up
production and achieve economies of scale. This only works so far
however. 8-VSB has a limited market to begin with since only the US and
S. Korea are seriously doing 8-VSB and the broadcasters in S. Korea are
doing everything in their power to get their government to change
modulations to COFDM. This kind of uncertainty and limited market
opportunities make manufacturers cautious and limit he number of
manufacturers that even want to get into the business of making 8-VSB
receivers at any price.

Therefore MOST set top box manufacturers have decided NOT to make 8-VSB
receivers which also lets current ones making them keep their prices high.

It is not only economies of scale that make 8-VSB more expensive than
other modulation receivers. 8-VSB is more expensive to produce
intrinsically. Trying to solve multipath problems by brute force
requires more silicon acreage hence higher cost.

COFDM receiver cost start at $60 and COFDM DVB-T HD receivers would
flood the US market at under $150 if this modulation was allowed in the
US. Why? Far lower royalty cost for one. IP royalties demanded by LG
Industries for their monopoly position in the US are 10 times those for
COFDM. Those figures are around $6 for 8-VSB and 60 CENTS for COFDM.
Manufactures take all cost including IP royalty cost and multiply by a
factor of from 3 to 5 times so that extra $5.40 demanded by LG
Industries cost you from $13.50 to $22.50 per receiver.

Then there is the economies of scale. COFDM is the world standard and is
being implemented in most other countries of the world. Knowing that
they can sell their products to a world market emboldens manufacturers
to build in large quantities which radically lowers cost.

More competition. Most set top box manufacturers are making or will soon
make COFDM receivers of many kinds that work with analog and digital TV
sets, PDA's, lap top computers, cell phones, portable TV sets and in car
receivers. This stiff competition for many large and new markets forces
the myriad of competitors to keep prices as low as possible.

It is not just the cost of the receiver that the manufacturer has to
consider. They know that the customer will have to buy and install a
rooftop antenna with rotor in most cases which is part of the total cost
the buyer is facing which lowers demand still further since COFDM does
not require such rotorized antenna. Also the retailer worries about
returns and problems with reception that will cut into or eliminate any
profit he might make so they emphasize the HDTV set and not the receiver
when selling. Result, 9 out of 10 HDTV buyers don't buy an OTA receiver.
Even though we know there is more HD content OTA than on cable or sat
and its free.

Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.

So you have few manufacturers making a more expensive receiver for a
smaller market (the US and S. Korea) and fewer markets (no mobile or
portable).




George Thorogood wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:21:43 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>They're that expensive because people will pay that much for them. Just
>>like DVD players used to be $500.
>>
>>They'll be commodity cheapo boxes long before 2007/
>
>
> Hey. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I remember those days. But I have
> never understood that kind of economics. If the cheapest is $300 regularly,
> I think they would sell a great deal more than 3 times more units at $100.
> And thus make more money, which is the whole point. For example, I (and
> two other guys I know) want an ota receiver. But I am not paying $300 for
> one. If I could get one for $100, that is acceptable. Guess I will just
> have to wait and keep an eye out for deals.
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 10:21:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:o bia80tb1tmg2ehubkuv4tsn937tu4i7r2@4ax.com...
> Hey. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I remember those days. But I have
> never understood that kind of economics. If the cheapest is $300
regularly,
> I think they would sell a great deal more than 3 times more units at $100.

Here's an interesting item for comparison:

https://www.dcpuraty.com/store/Product_Details.asp?Prod...

I have this card in my Dell desktop computer. It can display HDTV programs
on the 18" LCD monitor connected to my computer. It handles analog TV also.
So why is it so much cheaper than a set-top HDTV tuner? Because this card
makes use of the desktop computer's processing power and memory.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 12:48:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:49:05 -0700, "Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote:


>Of course they would. They would be able to give away millions if they were
>free. It's called price elasticity.

I realize there are production costs involved. But I do not for a second
believe these things cost very much to manufacture. Even at $100 per unit,
they would still be making a profit. How much technology is present in one
of these boxes versus something like a satellite DVR? Not nearly as much.
Most of the primary functions are on a single chip. And those DVRs cost $100,
although the price is being somewhat subsidized by directv. Still, even with
the "didn't subscribe within 30 days" penalty, they are $250. Cheaper than
any ota hdtv receiver anywhere.

>Reducing the price doesn't magically reduce the cost. If you can't make
>money at $100 you won't be in business very long. If you can come up with a
>better mousetrap people will flock to your door. There will be more and more
>competition and costs will drop, but it will take time.

How does competition reduce production costs? It only prevents them from
over pricing. The part I don't understand is how this flock will ever happen.
Very few people will pay the amount of money this stuff costs now. So how
would it ever get up the volume? Someone has to take the initiative and be
a little forward thinking. Maybe even take a little loss now to get a good
foothold on future profits. The transition has been so incredibly slow, I
don't see how they could possibly make it to all atsc by 2007 as the FCC wants.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:09:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:17:28 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>They are expensive because the manufacturers do not think there is a big
>market for them. They do not see demand, retailers don't want to stock
>them and customers are not buying them.

That is what I don't understand. At $300 a pop, at the very cheapest,
of course there isn't a big demand. Who wants to pay that much? At
something more reasonable, I believe the demand would pick up nicely.
I know of four guys (including myself) who are definitely interested,
but not at that price.

>If manufacturers believed that the market was large they could ramp up
>production and achieve economies of scale. This only works so far
>however. 8-VSB has a limited market to begin with since only the US and
>S. Korea are seriously doing 8-VSB and the broadcasters in S. Korea are
>doing everything in their power to get their government to change
>modulations to COFDM. This kind of uncertainty and limited market
>opportunities make manufacturers cautious and limit he number of
>manufacturers that even want to get into the business of making 8-VSB
>receivers at any price.

How does 8-VSB relate to directv's hd channels? Because every hd
satellite receiver I know of also does atsc. Why would they include
this type of modulation at all? And just stick with dtv's hd?

Also, how in the world does the FCC plan to get us transitioned from
ntsc to atsc under these circumstances by 2007 as planned?

>Therefore MOST set top box manufacturers have decided NOT to make 8-VSB
>receivers which also lets current ones making them keep their prices high.
>
>It is not only economies of scale that make 8-VSB more expensive than
>other modulation receivers. 8-VSB is more expensive to produce
>intrinsically. Trying to solve multipath problems by brute force
>requires more silicon acreage hence higher cost.
>
>COFDM receiver cost start at $60 and COFDM DVB-T HD receivers would
>flood the US market at under $150 if this modulation was allowed in the
>US. Why? Far lower royalty cost for one. IP royalties demanded by LG
>Industries for their monopoly position in the US are 10 times those for
>COFDM. Those figures are around $6 for 8-VSB and 60 CENTS for COFDM.
>Manufactures take all cost including IP royalty cost and multiply by a
>factor of from 3 to 5 times so that extra $5.40 demanded by LG
>Industries cost you from $13.50 to $22.50 per receiver.

Why are we using a different standard than the rest of the world?
Isn't it usually China that does this sorta thing? :-) Well, we
have stuck to our guns not switching to metric.

And paying a lot more to do it? That sounds pretty stupid. I
wonder who got rich being paid off to stick us with this one.

Based on your calculations, if a receiver did cost $22.50 to make,
and given a 5x markup, that still means we should see these things
on the market for like $120. Not $300 and up, up, up.

>Then there is the economies of scale. COFDM is the world standard and is
>being implemented in most other countries of the world. Knowing that
>they can sell their products to a world market emboldens manufacturers
>to build in large quantities which radically lowers cost.
>
>More competition. Most set top box manufacturers are making or will soon
>make COFDM receivers of many kinds that work with analog and digital TV
>sets, PDA's, lap top computers, cell phones, portable TV sets and in car
>receivers. This stiff competition for many large and new markets forces
>the myriad of competitors to keep prices as low as possible.
>
>It is not just the cost of the receiver that the manufacturer has to
>consider. They know that the customer will have to buy and install a
>rooftop antenna with rotor in most cases which is part of the total cost
>the buyer is facing which lowers demand still further since COFDM does
>not require such rotorized antenna. Also the retailer worries about
>returns and problems with reception that will cut into or eliminate any
>profit he might make so they emphasize the HDTV set and not the receiver
>when selling. Result, 9 out of 10 HDTV buyers don't buy an OTA receiver.
>Even though we know there is more HD content OTA than on cable or sat
>and its free.

What do 9/10 hdtv buyers buy? These installation/reception issues
are exactly the same with any satellite purchase, aren't they? They
even throw in installation for free. Yet they seem to be doing well.
So I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to fit with
how these issues work with the satellite market.

>Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
>indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.

I was under the impression that a regular tv antenna with good uhf
capabilities worked just fine. There are several very good omni-
directional uhf only antennas for fairly cheap.

>So you have few manufacturers making a more expensive receiver for a
>smaller market (the US and S. Korea) and fewer markets (no mobile or
>portable).

Again, I wonder how this transition is possible within a few years.

Thanks for the very enlightening response!!!
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:26:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood (thorogood@mailinator.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I realize there are production costs involved. But I do not for a second
> believe these things cost very much to manufacture. Even at $100 per unit,
> they would still be making a profit. How much technology is present in one
> of these boxes versus something like a satellite DVR? Not nearly as much.

Not true.

The MP@HL MPEG-2 decoder chip is nearly $100 *in quantity*. This is just
the chip to decode HD video...it is not an ATSC receiver, or anything
else.

> Most of the primary functions are on a single chip. And those DVRs cost $100,
> although the price is being somewhat subsidized by directv.

"Somewhat"? The actual cost of the hardware of an HDVR2 is over $300.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TreeChainsaw....
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:43:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YOdhc.3986$e4.1698@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> consider. They know that the customer will have to buy and install a
> rooftop antenna with rotor in most cases which is part of the total cost
> the buyer is facing which lowers demand still further since COFDM does
> not require such rotorized antenna. Also the retailer worries about

This is an exaggeration, I think. I suspect that most metropolitan areas
are roughly like Chicago, in that essentially all television broadcasts
emanate from the one or two tallest downtown buildings, which are close
together. (In Chicago's case, these are the Sears Tower and the John
Hancock Center.) Hence, simple unidirectional aiming is quite sufficient.
I have never even heard of a Chicagoland resident using a rotor such as you
describe, except perhaps for picking up sports games that are blacked out
locally.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:24:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Brad Houser wrote:
> "George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:o bia80tb1tmg2ehubkuv4tsn937tu4i7r2@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:21:43 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They're that expensive because people will pay that much for them. Just
>>>like DVD players used to be $500.
>>>
>>>They'll be commodity cheapo boxes long before 2007/
>>
>>Hey. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I remember those days. But I have
>>never understood that kind of economics. If the cheapest is $300
>
> regularly,
>
>>I think they would sell a great deal more than 3 times more units at $100.
>
>
> Of course they would. They would be able to give away millions if they were
> free. It's called price elasticity.
>
>
>>And thus make more money, which is the whole point.
>
>
> Reducing the price doesn't magically reduce the cost. If you can't make
> money at $100 you won't be in business very long. If you can come up with a
> better mousetrap people will flock to your door. There will be more and more
> competition and costs will drop, but it will take time.
>
> Brad H
>

It didn't take any time in the UK or Berlin. Once it was established
that the market WANTED the COFDM receivers there were lots of new
receivers offered in just months. Italy and Japan have now joined that
club and Spain and France will soon I believe.

We are on a very slow leaky boat in the US with 8-VSB so I wouldn't
expect any miracles. And it is not HD that is the holdup for Japan and
Australia are both doing HD with COFDM much more successfully than we are.

And the Mandate will not help. People will just buy monitors with no
tuners at all.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:09:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:49:05 -0700, "Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Of course they would. They would be able to give away millions if they were
>>free. It's called price elasticity.
>
>
> I realize there are production costs involved. But I do not for a second
> believe these things cost very much to manufacture. Even at $100 per unit,
> they would still be making a profit. How much technology is present in one
> of these boxes versus something like a satellite DVR? Not nearly as much.
> Most of the primary functions are on a single chip. And those DVRs cost $100,
> although the price is being somewhat subsidized by directv. Still, even with
> the "didn't subscribe within 30 days" penalty, they are $250. Cheaper than
> any ota hdtv receiver anywhere.
>
>
>>Reducing the price doesn't magically reduce the cost. If you can't make
>>money at $100 you won't be in business very long. If you can come up with a
>>better mousetrap people will flock to your door. There will be more and more
>>competition and costs will drop, but it will take time.
>
>
> How does competition reduce production costs? It only prevents them from
> over pricing. The part I don't understand is how this flock will ever happen.
> Very few people will pay the amount of money this stuff costs now. So how
> would it ever get up the volume? Someone has to take the initiative and be
> a little forward thinking. Maybe even take a little loss now to get a good
> foothold on future profits. The transition has been so incredibly slow, I
> don't see how they could possibly make it to all atsc by 2007 as the FCC wants.

Take initiative? Who? Why? No one believes in this 8-VSB transition.
Broadcasters don't, they believe in must carry on cable. Retailers
don't, how many ads do you see for OTA receivers? If any single company
were to do this "forward thinking" you talk about it would be LG
Industries. After all they don't have to pay themselves a royalty for
each receiver. And they can do very well by selling an HDTV monitor with
it or an integrated set.

LG would be most likely to do this and even they don't do it. Why should
they when they can go to their Congressional friends and get a mandate
instead. Why bother taking a risk or spending money on advertising when
you can get the government to mandate the receivers into every TV set
and a royalty into their pocket for every one. Much less expensive to
buy off the government then go though all that messy selling. One sale
to the government and we all get shafted.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:08:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <0jkb80hfqdfki63k32kcdkd2gb4kiibon5@4ax.com>,
George Thorogood <thorogood@mailinator.com> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:17:28 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>They are expensive because the manufacturers do not think there is a big
>>market for them. They do not see demand, retailers don't want to stock
>>them and customers are not buying them.
>
> That is what I don't understand. At $300 a pop, at the very cheapest,
> of course there isn't a big demand. Who wants to pay that much? At
> something more reasonable, I believe the demand would pick up nicely.
> I know of four guys (including myself) who are definitely interested,
> but not at that price.
>
The problem with OTA reception cost is with the fact that 'seperate'
components tend to impede the adoption process. Back when NTSC
tuners were high end boutique items, they were also incredibly
expensive (e.g. the Proton or Profeel seperates.)

The key to faster HDTV adoption is to regularize the 'kit' for HDTV
reception. This is happening by setting receiver requirements. UHF
TV also had a slow adoption until the minimum quality requirements
for UHF tuners.

Numerous 'nonlinear' chicken and egg senerios apply to the HDTV
adoption issues. We have dealt with FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt)
from special (non-HDTV) interests and numerous other issues (including
the previously special nature of relatively high res 16x9 display
technologies that impeded general adoption.)

(Comments about the 'common' 16x9 displays in Europe and elsewhere
are TOTALLY non-operative in the US due to the higher quality requirements
for GOOD HDTV performance. Some lower end HDTVs do have low quality
Pal-Plus level performing displays, but that is a waste.)

John
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood wrote:


> How does 8-VSB relate to directv's hd channels? Because every hd
> satellite receiver I know of also does atsc. Why would they include
> this type of modulation at all? And just stick with dtv's hd?

I think satellite companies are including 8-SVB to facilitate local TV
reception where they can't provide it.
>
> Also, how in the world does the FCC plan to get us transitioned from
> ntsc to atsc under these circumstances by 2007 as planned?

I don't think anyone at the FCC talks seriously of 2007. They are at the
moment getting heated up about it as I predicted they would as very
successful DTV transitions in other countries become more visible.
Berlin for one where they had a NINE MONTH transition. That is they
turned off ALL analog broadcasting only nine months after starting
digital broadcasting. Compare that to our 6 years and counting to 2020.
And while we have less than a ONE% penetration of DTV after those 6
years, Berlin has a 13% penetration after what is now 16 months.
>
>
>>Therefore MOST set top box manufacturers have decided NOT to make 8-VSB
>>receivers which also lets current ones making them keep their prices high.
>>
>>It is not only economies of scale that make 8-VSB more expensive than
>>other modulation receivers. 8-VSB is more expensive to produce
>>intrinsically. Trying to solve multipath problems by brute force
>>requires more silicon acreage hence higher cost.
>>
>>COFDM receiver cost start at $60 and COFDM DVB-T HD receivers would
>>flood the US market at under $150 if this modulation was allowed in the
>>US. Why? Far lower royalty cost for one. IP royalties demanded by LG
>>Industries for their monopoly position in the US are 10 times those for
>>COFDM. Those figures are around $6 for 8-VSB and 60 CENTS for COFDM.
>>Manufactures take all cost including IP royalty cost and multiply by a
>>factor of from 3 to 5 times so that extra $5.40 demanded by LG
>>Industries cost you from $13.50 to $22.50 per receiver.
>
>
> Why are we using a different standard than the rest of the world?
> Isn't it usually China that does this sorta thing? :-) Well, we
> have stuck to our guns not switching to metric.

Yes China is doing that sort of thing. They are trying to build their
own modulation but may settle for the world standard DVB-T as Hong Kong
already has.
>
> And paying a lot more to do it? That sounds pretty stupid. I
> wonder who got rich being paid off to stick us with this one.
>
> Based on your calculations, if a receiver did cost $22.50 to make,
> and given a 5x markup, that still means we should see these things
> on the market for like $120. Not $300 and up, up, up.
>
No that is not what the receivers cost to make. That is the royalty
charged by LG Industries multiplied by a factor of 3 or 5 by the
manufacturer before any manufacturing cost. The same cost for IP
royalties for COFDM would range from $1.50 to $2.50
>

>
> I was under the impression that a regular tv antenna with good uhf
> capabilities worked just fine. There are several very good omni-
> directional uhf only antennas for fairly cheap.

Omni is a problem with 8-VSB and multipath. Normally you would want a
very directional antenna to avoid multipath as much as possible. COFDM
is fine with omnidirectional antennas and loves multipath which actually
increases the overall signal strength.
>
>
> Again, I wonder how this transition is possible within a few years.

It is not possible in a few years with 8-VSB. What is possible is a
pretend transition. You mandate receivers and pretend people are using
them. We pretend that our spectrum is being used efficiently, we pretend
that we have a functioning modulation system. We pretend that we did due
diligence in picking 8-VSB in the first place. None of which is true.
>
> Thanks for the very enlightening response!!!
April 21, 2004 12:33:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
>Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
>indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.

I've read hundreds of complaints about impulse noise interference, huge
roof-top antennas, pictures freezing, etc etc from the British and
Australian newsgroups.

The idea of COFDM for U.S. HDTV is a really bad joke.

And, the HDTV receivers in Australia are no cheaper than they are here...but
you knew that.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:26:31 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>George Thorogood (thorogood@mailinator.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I realize there are production costs involved. But I do not for a second
>> believe these things cost very much to manufacture. Even at $100 per unit,
>> they would still be making a profit. How much technology is present in one
>> of these boxes versus something like a satellite DVR? Not nearly as much.
>
>Not true.

Explain please. Both have a receiver module. Both have a decoder chip.
But the DVR has a full blown cpu running a major OS, hard drive, network I/O,
access card functions. The ota hdtv probably just has a cheap microcontroller.
The decoder chip is more complicated, but geeze...

>The MP@HL MPEG-2 decoder chip is nearly $100 *in quantity*. This is just
>the chip to decode HD video...it is not an ATSC receiver, or anything
>else.

The Toshiba TC81240TBG mp@hl decoder sells for $35.

>> Most of the primary functions are on a single chip. And those DVRs cost $100,
>> although the price is being somewhat subsidized by directv.
>
>"Somewhat"? The actual cost of the hardware of an HDVR2 is over $300.

Then why can I buy one for $250 after including the no-dtv penalty? If
the hardware costs were over $300, they would be losing serious money.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:46:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:09:24 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Take initiative? Who? Why? No one believes in this 8-VSB transition.
>Broadcasters don't, they believe in must carry on cable. Retailers
>don't, how many ads do you see for OTA receivers? If any single company
>were to do this "forward thinking" you talk about it would be LG
>Industries. After all they don't have to pay themselves a royalty for
>each receiver. And they can do very well by selling an HDTV monitor with
>it or an integrated set.
>
>LG would be most likely to do this and even they don't do it. Why should
>they when they can go to their Congressional friends and get a mandate
>instead. Why bother taking a risk or spending money on advertising when
>you can get the government to mandate the receivers into every TV set
>and a royalty into their pocket for every one. Much less expensive to
>buy off the government then go though all that messy selling. One sale
>to the government and we all get shafted.

Again, I am confused on how we got into this situation, and how this
transition could ever happen. What is the catalyst that will drive
down the prices? From your response and others, I don't see one.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:59:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:18:43 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I think satellite companies are including 8-SVB to facilitate local TV
>reception where they can't provide it.

I guess that makes sense.

>I don't think anyone at the FCC talks seriously of 2007. They are at the
>moment getting heated up about it as I predicted they would as very
>successful DTV transitions in other countries become more visible.
>Berlin for one where they had a NINE MONTH transition. That is they
>turned off ALL analog broadcasting only nine months after starting
>digital broadcasting. Compare that to our 6 years and counting to 2020.
>And while we have less than a ONE% penetration of DTV after those 6
>years, Berlin has a 13% penetration after what is now 16 months.

Wow, now that's impressive. What happened to the 87%? They just
can't get TV anymore?

>No that is not what the receivers cost to make. That is the royalty
>charged by LG Industries multiplied by a factor of 3 or 5 by the
>manufacturer before any manufacturing cost. The same cost for IP
>royalties for COFDM would range from $1.50 to $2.50

I thought the figure he had mentioned was manufacturing costs and
the royalties. Based on another message in this thread, it looks
like the mp@hl decoder chips are fairly expensive. Around $35 in
very very large quantity. Given that, the royalties, the rest of
the hardware, I can see a manufacturing cost around $65. And if
you use that 3x to 5x multiplier, that gives you a $200 to $300
price range for a basic receiver. I guess the prices out there
aren't quite as bad as I thought...


>Omni is a problem with 8-VSB and multipath. Normally you would want a
>very directional antenna to avoid multipath as much as possible. COFDM
>is fine with omnidirectional antennas and loves multipath which actually
>increases the overall signal strength.

Ah! Excellent point. I had not considered that. Does make
me curious how the satellite radio people do it, as Sirius and
especially XM also use terrestrial stations to enhance reception.
I would think multipath could protentially be a problem there too.

Based on a few other posts, it sounds like COFDM may have some issues too.

>It is not possible in a few years with 8-VSB. What is possible is a
>pretend transition. You mandate receivers and pretend people are using
>them. We pretend that our spectrum is being used efficiently, we pretend
>that we have a functioning modulation system. We pretend that we did due
>diligence in picking 8-VSB in the first place. None of which is true.

Is the FCC really that incompetent? It amazes me that someone
does not see what is going on and fix the problem. Unless the
value of this whole transition thing was just political/PR and
they have no real interest in making it happen.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Blow it out your ass, bob!

As usual, you are full of FUD!
==========================================
"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YOdhc.3986$e4.1698@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:
: They are expensive because the manufacturers do not think there is a
big
: market for them. They do not see demand, retailers don't want to stock
: them and customers are not buying them.
:
: If manufacturers believed that the market was large they could ramp up
: production and achieve economies of scale. This only works so far
: however. 8-VSB has a limited market to begin with since only the US
and
: S. Korea are seriously doing 8-VSB and the broadcasters in S. Korea
are
: doing everything in their power to get their government to change
: modulations to COFDM. This kind of uncertainty and limited market
: opportunities make manufacturers cautious and limit he number of
: manufacturers that even want to get into the business of making 8-VSB
: receivers at any price.
:
: Therefore MOST set top box manufacturers have decided NOT to make
8-VSB
: receivers which also lets current ones making them keep their prices
high.
:
: It is not only economies of scale that make 8-VSB more expensive than
: other modulation receivers. 8-VSB is more expensive to produce
: intrinsically. Trying to solve multipath problems by brute force
: requires more silicon acreage hence higher cost.
:
: COFDM receiver cost start at $60 and COFDM DVB-T HD receivers would
: flood the US market at under $150 if this modulation was allowed in
the
: US. Why? Far lower royalty cost for one. IP royalties demanded by LG
: Industries for their monopoly position in the US are 10 times those
for
: COFDM. Those figures are around $6 for 8-VSB and 60 CENTS for COFDM.
: Manufactures take all cost including IP royalty cost and multiply by a
: factor of from 3 to 5 times so that extra $5.40 demanded by LG
: Industries cost you from $13.50 to $22.50 per receiver.
:
: Then there is the economies of scale. COFDM is the world standard and
is
: being implemented in most other countries of the world. Knowing that
: they can sell their products to a world market emboldens manufacturers
: to build in large quantities which radically lowers cost.
:
: More competition. Most set top box manufacturers are making or will
soon
: make COFDM receivers of many kinds that work with analog and digital
TV
: sets, PDA's, lap top computers, cell phones, portable TV sets and in
car
: receivers. This stiff competition for many large and new markets
forces
: the myriad of competitors to keep prices as low as possible.
:
: It is not just the cost of the receiver that the manufacturer has to
: consider. They know that the customer will have to buy and install a
: rooftop antenna with rotor in most cases which is part of the total
cost
: the buyer is facing which lowers demand still further since COFDM does
: not require such rotorized antenna. Also the retailer worries about
: returns and problems with reception that will cut into or eliminate
any
: profit he might make so they emphasize the HDTV set and not the
receiver
: when selling. Result, 9 out of 10 HDTV buyers don't buy an OTA
receiver.
: Even though we know there is more HD content OTA than on cable or sat
: and its free.
:
: Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
: indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.
:
: So you have few manufacturers making a more expensive receiver for a
: smaller market (the US and S. Korea) and fewer markets (no mobile or
: portable).
:
:
:
:
: George Thorogood wrote:
: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:21:43 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com>
wrote:
: >
: >
: >>They're that expensive because people will pay that much for them.
Just
: >>like DVD players used to be $500.
: >>
: >>They'll be commodity cheapo boxes long before 2007/
: >
: >
: > Hey. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I remember those days. But I
have
: > never understood that kind of economics. If the cheapest is $300
regularly,
: > I think they would sell a great deal more than 3 times more units at
$100.
: > And thus make more money, which is the whole point. For example, I
(and
: > two other guys I know) want an ota receiver. But I am not paying
$300 for
: > one. If I could get one for $100, that is acceptable. Guess I will
just
: > have to wait and keep an eye out for deals.
: >
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:56:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:0jkb80hfqdfki63k32kcdkd2gb4kiibon5@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:17:28 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:
:
: Thanks for the very enlightening response!!!

===================
Bob has a hidden agenda.
He wants mobile and datacasting.
He hates HDTV.
He lies.

Nothing enlightening about his responses.
===================
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:01:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:D Cmhc.4776$e4.1321@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:
: I don't think anyone at the FCC talks seriously of 2007. They are at
the
: moment getting heated up about it as I predicted they would as very
: successful DTV transitions in other countries become more visible.


=====================
They are EXTREMELY serious.
There was an article in the paper this morning that the TV stations
were warned to NOT impede DTV transition.

It stated that the government WILL sell their analog bandwidth whether
they are ready or not.

They are EXTREMELY serious.

Give it up, bob!
====================
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:04:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"George Thorogood" <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:i52d805dv7vj52ibj2m7eq3kihq7ito7kd@4ax.com...
:
: Is the FCC really that incompetent? It amazes me that someone
: does not see what is going on and fix the problem.

====================
The problem is all in bob's mind.

The transition is happening and it is happening fast.

The 85% rule is NOW met, depending on how you interpret it.
85% of the population potentially can receive DTV today - now - as we
speak!

====================
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 5:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o Jkhc.2906$eZ5.42@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:
: Take initiative? Who? Why? No one believes in this 8-VSB transition.
: Broadcasters don't, they believe in must carry on cable.

=================
Oh really?
Then how come the CBS affiliate in Seattle is REFUSING to let Comcast
carry their HD signal?
Where is the broadcaster's belief in "must carry" in that instance?

HT/DTV transition is going well.
====================
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:58:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
>>indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.
>
>
> I've read hundreds of complaints about impulse noise interference, huge
> roof-top antennas, pictures freezing, etc etc from the British and
> Australian newsgroups.
>
> The idea of COFDM for U.S. HDTV is a really bad joke.
>
> And, the HDTV receivers in Australia are no cheaper than they are here...but
> you knew that.
>
Talking to broadcasters at the NAB FCC Chairman Powell said this...

http://news.com.com/2100-1037-5195961.html?tag=nefd.hed

"You're going to have a problem, if (in coming years) a Wi-Fi broadcast
is matching the service of a local broadcaster with a license for free
over-the-air programming," Powell said. "There are a lot of people who
want your schedule."

I have a friend with a plan to build a metro-hotspot of 802.11g in all
of Manhattan. Combined with 802.16 and other emerged technologies this
Manhattan "spot" will grow to cover the entire city. The future of OTA
DTV broadcasting looks less like a business plan all the time. When you
consider that in the cities 8-VSB has a real problem with reception and
couple that with the attitude toward OTA broadcasting that is prevalent
among the broadcast community you have a dead industry.

BTW did you know that 802.11g is COFDM? Wouldn't that be ironic if
802.11g displaced OTA 8-VSB broadcasting with COFDM. And IT WILL! It is
a given. The question is what do we do with the TV spectrum that is
already wasted on NTSC and ATSC. How do we get it back ASAP for better
mobile uses.

Listen to NAB CEO Fritts in the same article...

"Our DTV and high-definition signals are all dressed up with no place to
go," Fritts said in a morning keynote Monday. "I call on the FCC to
break down the cable industry's digital dam and let the free broadcast
signals flow."

All this top broadcast representative can think of is must carry and
multicasting on cable. NO INTEREST in OTA broadcasting at all. The FCC
should take back their spectrum, all of it, just based on this attitude.
And while he is quite about it now and no one challenges them what is so
important about multicasting? From the beginning I have said that OTA
broadcasting would be used for datacasting and multicasting. HDTV will
be delivered via cable and satellite. There is no business case for OTA
HDTV. And all the broadcasters know it. The only ones that can be public
about it until they get the FCC to rule in their favor are the Public
Broadcasters and they are not shy about saying that they are going to
emphasize IP datacasting and multicasting.

AS SOON AS THE FCC PASSES A RULE FORCING THE CABLE COMPANIES TO CARRY
MULTICAST PROGRAMMING FROM THE BROADCASTERS ALL PRETENSE WILL BE GONE.
THERE WILL BE A FRENZY OF MULTICAST PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION.

The economics dictate that OTA broadcasters dump HDTV ASAP.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:12:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
>>indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.
>
>
> I've read hundreds of complaints about impulse noise interference, huge
> roof-top antennas, pictures freezing, etc etc from the British and
> Australian newsgroups.
>
> The idea of COFDM for U.S. HDTV is a really bad joke.
>
> And, the HDTV receivers in Australia are no cheaper than they are here...but
> you knew that.
>

There are million of receivers in the UK so reading hundreds of impulse
noise complaints is statistically insignificant. There are around 1.2
million early receivers that were produced before the problem of impulse
noise was fully addressed. The UK was so excited by COFDM that they
rushed into it in an early form with some resulting problems.

The reality is that even with these early problems and still using an
ancient version of COFDM the British public is buying receivers at an
incredible rate.

Also because of the need to maintain politically the analog TV broadcast
the COFDM broadcast is being done at an average of ONE kW of power per
transmitter. Compare to their typical 8-VSB transmitter at a million
watts. Also about 30% of the UK is not covered by any broadcast signal
yet so many viewers put up big antennas to try to pick up the signal
outside normal coverage areas.

Again the reality is that in the UK using 1/1000th the power and an old
outmoded COFDM modulation system the digital transition is wildly
successful.

And the Australian receivers are still costly because they have a total
market of 5 million homes in their 7 MHz market. If COFDM were allowed
in the US, HDTV receivers would be offered for sale by at least 50
companies within 3 months and the lowest price receivers would be under
$145 by then also.

As far as reception in OZ the same holds true. OZ is a big place and
most of it is not covered by digital transmitters that operate at much
lower power than in the US. OZ is building out Single Frequency Networks
with COFDM and in their coverage area as they expand they will have easy
indoor reception with simple antennas.

And of course you knew all this so I don't know why you keep posting
such drivel. OZ is selling receivers at five times the US rate BTW.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:18:43 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I think satellite companies are including 8-SVB to facilitate local TV
>>reception where they can't provide it.
>
>
> I guess that makes sense.
>
>
>>I don't think anyone at the FCC talks seriously of 2007. They are at the
>>moment getting heated up about it as I predicted they would as very
>>successful DTV transitions in other countries become more visible.
>>Berlin for one where they had a NINE MONTH transition. That is they
>>turned off ALL analog broadcasting only nine months after starting
>>digital broadcasting. Compare that to our 6 years and counting to 2020.
>>And while we have less than a ONE% penetration of DTV after those 6
>>years, Berlin has a 13% penetration after what is now 16 months.
>
>
> Wow, now that's impressive. What happened to the 87%? They just
> can't get TV anymore?

95% of Berliners have cable and satellite. Very few relied on OTA
reception for TV, 5%. So it really amazing that 13% now have OTA
receivers. That means that 8 of that 13% are cable or satellite or
FORMER cable or satellite customers. The cable industry in Berlin is
complaining about the unfair competition from OTA. They are losing a lot
of customers who are happy to live with the 30 free OTA channels and
cancel cable.
>
>
>>No that is not what the receivers cost to make. That is the royalty
>>charged by LG Industries multiplied by a factor of 3 or 5 by the
>>manufacturer before any manufacturing cost. The same cost for IP
>>royalties for COFDM would range from $1.50 to $2.50
>
>
> I thought the figure he had mentioned was manufacturing costs and
> the royalties. Based on another message in this thread, it looks
> like the mp@hl decoder chips are fairly expensive. Around $35 in
> very very large quantity. Given that, the royalties, the rest of
> the hardware, I can see a manufacturing cost around $65. And if
> you use that 3x to 5x multiplier, that gives you a $200 to $300
> price range for a basic receiver. I guess the prices out there
> aren't quite as bad as I thought...

Selling, distribution and return cost are a very big factor in any
price. I believe however that there is a negative cost to the retailer
that keeps them from being excited about selling 8-VSB receivers. In
Manhattan I tested a retailer about 8-VSB. They did everything they
could to dissuade me from buying the receiver. And when I persisted they
required that I sign a non return understanding if reception didn't work.

Also with the buyer there are extra cost. The unknown cost of the
antenna and its installation is the main one. The other is the hassle
factor. People who are accustomed to cable or satellite shy away from
the hassle factor and the unknowns with reception associated with OTA
8-VSB in the US. It is easier to just live with the status quo. I put
this "hassle factor" at a $1000 cost in the customers consideration of
buying an OTA receiver. So you have a $300 to $400 receiver plus an
unknown antenna cost of lets say on average $200 and then you have an
extra $1000 "HASSLE FACTOR" for a total of on average $1550 cost for OTA.

In Berlin you buy a $70 to $200 receiver, take it home and plug it in to
your analog TV set and the wall, it works 30 free OTA TV channels of DVD
quality. Actually higher than US DVD quality. 576 lines.
>
>
>
>>Omni is a problem with 8-VSB and multipath. Normally you would want a
>>very directional antenna to avoid multipath as much as possible. COFDM
>>is fine with omnidirectional antennas and loves multipath which actually
>>increases the overall signal strength.
>
>
> Ah! Excellent point. I had not considered that. Does make
> me curious how the satellite radio people do it, as Sirius and
> especially XM also use terrestrial stations to enhance reception.
> I would think multipath could protentially be a problem there too.

It is a problem. That is why XM and Sirius both use COFDM for their
terrestrial repeaters which eliminates any multipath problems in their
coverage areas. A place like NYC has many COFDM repeaters from XM. This
couldn't work with 8-VSB. Each transmitter would interfere with the others.
>
> Based on a few other posts, it sounds like COFDM may have some issues too.

Nothing is perfect. However COFDM looks perfect when compared to 8-VSB.
COFDM is being improved also. The Japanese just started broadcasting
HDTV using a new ISDB-T COFDM based system. The Chinese are trying to go
one better with a yet newer modulation system based on COFDM.
>
>
>>It is not possible in a few years with 8-VSB. What is possible is a
>>pretend transition. You mandate receivers and pretend people are using
>>them. We pretend that our spectrum is being used efficiently, we pretend
>>that we have a functioning modulation system. We pretend that we did due
>>diligence in picking 8-VSB in the first place. None of which is true.
>
>
> Is the FCC really that incompetent? It amazes me that someone
> does not see what is going on and fix the problem. Unless the
> value of this whole transition thing was just political/PR and
> they have no real interest in making it happen.

The FCC is underfunded and reacts to whoever makes the most noise.
Whoever is in their face the most. Congress, The CEA and broadcasters
and lots of money complicates the issue in perverse ways. At the time
the decisions were being made no other technology was allowed in the
tent. It was a closed, small and very intense group that drove the
process. The public did not have a champion in this event. It was all
about special interest.

The FCC had very little to do with the decision. It was purely political
nothing technical about it.
April 21, 2004 11:28:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o 3xhc.5267$e4.1455@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
>
> > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> >>Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
> >>indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.
> >
> >
> > I've read hundreds of complaints about impulse noise interference, huge
> > roof-top antennas, pictures freezing, etc etc from the British and
> > Australian newsgroups.
> >
> > The idea of COFDM for U.S. HDTV is a really bad joke.
> >
> > And, the HDTV receivers in Australia are no cheaper than they are
here...but
> > you knew that.
> >
>
> There are million of receivers in the UK so reading hundreds of impulse
> noise complaints is statistically insignificant. There are around 1.2
> million early receivers that were produced before the problem of impulse
> noise was fully addressed. The UK was so excited by COFDM that they
> rushed into it in an early form with some resulting problems.
>
> The reality is that even with these early problems and still using an
> ancient version of COFDM the British public is buying receivers at an
> incredible rate.
>
> Also because of the need to maintain politically the analog TV broadcast
> the COFDM broadcast is being done at an average of ONE kW of power per
> transmitter. Compare to their typical 8-VSB transmitter at a million
> watts. Also about 30% of the UK is not covered by any broadcast signal
> yet so many viewers put up big antennas to try to pick up the signal
> outside normal coverage areas.
>
> Again the reality is that in the UK using 1/1000th the power and an old
> outmoded COFDM modulation system the digital transition is wildly
> successful.
>
> And the Australian receivers are still costly because they have a total
> market of 5 million homes in their 7 MHz market. If COFDM were allowed
> in the US, HDTV receivers would be offered for sale by at least 50
> companies within 3 months and the lowest price receivers would be under
> $145 by then also.
>
> As far as reception in OZ the same holds true. OZ is a big place and
> most of it is not covered by digital transmitters that operate at much
> lower power than in the US. OZ is building out Single Frequency Networks
> with COFDM and in their coverage area as they expand they will have easy
> indoor reception with simple antennas.
>
> And of course you knew all this so I don't know why you keep posting
> such drivel. OZ is selling receivers at five times the US rate BTW.
>
April 21, 2004 11:34:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o 3xhc.5267$e4.1455@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> And of course you knew all this so I don't know why you keep posting
> such drivel. OZ is selling receivers at five times the US rate BTW.

I read on the AVS forum that you actually used your daughter's
computer to create a supporting reply to one of your own postings there.

I wonder why you were asked to leave the AVS forum?
I wonder why everyone thinks you're a fool?
April 22, 2004 12:39:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote>

>And of course you knew all this so I don't know why you keep posting
> such drivel.

About 100 members (including me) demanded you be thrown out of the AVS
forum.
And you were. Now you're here.

Why do you hate HDTV owners so much?
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 1:59:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood (thorogood@mailinator.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:26:31 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> >George Thorogood (thorogood@mailinator.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> I realize there are production costs involved. But I do not for a second
> >> believe these things cost very much to manufacture. Even at $100 per unit,
> >> they would still be making a profit. How much technology is present in one
> >> of these boxes versus something like a satellite DVR? Not nearly as much.
> >
> >Not true.
>
> Explain please. Both have a receiver module. Both have a decoder chip.

A $5 decoder chip vs. a $50-100 decoder chip. The ATSC receivers also
(mostly) receive NTSC/cable, have component video outputs, DVI outputs,
as much memory as the DVR, etc.

> But the DVR has a full blown cpu running a major OS, hard drive, network I/O,
> access card functions.

The "network I/O" is a software thing. Only the hard drive is really much
of an added extra cost, since the software in an ATSC receiver is fairly
sophisticated, too, and it's likely that the processor in the ATSC receiver
is running faster than the one in the DVR.

> >The MP@HL MPEG-2 decoder chip is nearly $100 *in quantity*. This is just
> >the chip to decode HD video...it is not an ATSC receiver, or anything
> >else.
>
> The Toshiba TC81240TBG mp@hl decoder sells for $35.

In very, very large quantities.

> >"Somewhat"? The actual cost of the hardware of an HDVR2 is over $300.
>
> Then why can I buy one for $250 after including the no-dtv penalty?

Because the original sale is over-subsidized at the moment, since nobody
in their right mind would buy a $250 doorstop.

Even so, this works out that an ATSC receiver should be about $250-300,
and that's generally what you can get them for. Of course, the best thing
to do is to get a $99 DirecTV HD receiver, activate it, and then deactivate
it a month later. It will then receive OTA HD without any satellite
connection needed.

--
Jeff Rife | "If we give peas a chance, won't the lima
SPAM bait: | beans feel left out?"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Pinky
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 1:59:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:59:32 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>A $5 decoder chip vs. a $50-100 decoder chip. The ATSC receivers also
>(mostly) receive NTSC/cable, have component video outputs, DVI outputs,
>as much memory as the DVR, etc.

Valid point.

>> The Toshiba TC81240TBG mp@hl decoder sells for $35.
>
>In very, very large quantities.

Yeah, that price was at 300k units. Quite a few...

>Even so, this works out that an ATSC receiver should be about $250-300,
>and that's generally what you can get them for. Of course, the best thing
>to do is to get a $99 DirecTV HD receiver, activate it, and then deactivate
>it a month later. It will then receive OTA HD without any satellite
>connection needed.

Hum. Good idea!
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 5:01:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood (thorogood@mailinator.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> The Toshiba TC81240TBG mp@hl decoder sells for $35.
> >
> >In very, very large quantities.
>
> Yeah, that price was at 300k units. Quite a few...

....especially when you consider that less than 3 million ATSC receivers
have been sold in 4 years or so...and that people who post here are
responsible for half of those (hey, I got my 3 :) .

Gambling $10M against future sales isn't a great idea right now, because
there is no way of knowing what might happen with cable and satellite
HDTV. And then there's the fact that TVs will have them built in soon,
so external boxes might not sell well. I say this even though I'm a
*huge* OTA HD proponent.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | "He chose...poorly."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 3:11:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af0f10c5b8cea4e98b3ad@news.nabs.net...


As I recall, Jeff, you better keep that receiver activated on D* for a year,
and maintain your programming level (dollars), or you will be paying a hefty
additional charge for the receiver. You have to agree to that when you get
the 99 buck deal. I have one, love it and don't mind the 1 year requirement
at all. My Samsung 360 has worked perfectly for the first month. OTA and D*
have performed (largely) to perfection.

I would not advise anyone to rely on a one month activation/deactivation in
attempting to get a cheap deal ($99) on a new HD unit from D*.

The $99 deal as implemented by D* is more than fair. Trying to use their
subsidy of the purchase to avoid buying a year's worth of service is asking
for trouble.

....hasan, N0AN


>
> Even so, this works out that an ATSC receiver should be about $250-300,
> and that's generally what you can get them for. Of course, the best thing
> to do is to get a $99 DirecTV HD receiver, activate it, and then
deactivate
> it a month later. It will then receive OTA HD without any satellite
> connection needed.
>

(and you'll owe them several hundred dollars for violating the purchase
agreement you made when you got a 350 dollar receiver for 99 dollars). It
always pays to read/listen to the fine print.
April 23, 2004 5:45:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On April 21 2004, George Thorogood <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Even so, this works out that an ATSC receiver should be about
>> $250-300, and that's generally what you can get them for. Of course,
>> the best thing to do is to get a $99 DirecTV HD receiver, activate
>> it, and then deactivate it a month later. It will then receive OTA
>> HD without any satellite connection needed.
>
> Hum. Good idea!

Is this a special promotion? I went to www.directtv.com but I did not
see anything remotely describing this offer.

Am I missing something or is it a "requested" offer?

Thanks,
Sid
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:41:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

hasan schiers (schiers@netins.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> As I recall, Jeff, you better keep that receiver activated on D* for a year,
> and maintain your programming level (dollars), or you will be paying a hefty
> additional charge for the receiver.

The DirecTV commitment is for one year of service of at least Total Choice.
No more...no less. You don't have to keep all the receivers activated, nor
do you have to maintain the same level of subscription as you had when you
activated the "last" receiver, as long as you never drop down below Total
Choice (which isn't possible any more without totally cancelling).

--
Jeff Rife | "One minute we were spanking each other with
SPAM bait: | meat, and the next minute it got weird."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Joe Hackett, "Wings"
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:41:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sid (TransAdmirer@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Is this a special promotion? I went to www.directtv.com but I did not
> see anything remotely describing this offer.
>
> Am I missing something or is it a "requested" offer?

See http://www.tivocommunity.com/ for more details. I think it's a call
and ask for it kind of thing.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/AmericaOnline...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
!