Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Japan and OZ HDTV compared to US

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 10:50:00 PM

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

After how many years the total number of OTA DTV receivers sold in the
US is 1.2 million OTA and .6 million satellite. How many of those are in
individual homes is probably much less. Many owners have multiple
receivers, there are a lot at TV stations and a lot collecting dust in
warehouses and dealers shelves with no advertising to tell the public
they are there. And who knows how many of the satellite receivers with
built in OTA 8-VSB are connected to an antenna or even in a coverage
area of DTV broadcast.

Compare to Japan where they have over a million sets sold in the first 4
and 1/2 months. And 92% integrated. Very few duplicates here, very few
setting on dealer shelves, no dust gathering, no mandate that they have
to buy an integrated set.

And only THREE cities and 12 million people covered. What happens when
HDTV broadcasting covers all 100 million? This success is going to tip
the scales in other countries now. Other countries are now going to
decide on HD like France. The US could have been the leader here but
instead spent all of its energy trying to force a poor modulation on a
confused world. Confused in the sense that they did not understand why
we were doing this which was obviously not in the interest of our citizens.

That is we spent a lot of time and money teaching the world about our
political corrupt system and or our incompetence technically in the DTV
world. It has also given countries like China the realization that they
could do better on their own. They don't have to follow our lead
anymore. We have careened off the path and are in political never never
land.

We shouldn't worry about losing our textile trade to places like China.
Pretty soon we will be making underwear for them. We used to criticize
Japan for their "industrial policy". Now we are doing it in spades and
very badly. Mandates do not make things work they just waste time and money.

More about : japan hdtv compared

Anonymous
April 25, 2004 9:48:09 PM

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

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Compare to Japan where they have over a million sets sold in the first 4 and
> 1/2 months. And 92% integrated. Very few duplicates here, very few setting on
> dealer shelves, no dust gathering, no mandate that they have to buy an
> integrated set.

Japan has been doing its HDTV transition since 1990 or thereabouts. Of
course, back then they had an analog HDTV system that nobody wanted.

Let's see how North America does 15 years into its HDTV transition.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 9:00:22 AM

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

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:48:09 -0700, Mark Crispin
<mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>Let's see how North America does 15 years into its HDTV transition.

If you based your predictions on its transition to the metric
system...
Related resources
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 4:52:30 PM

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

Karyudo (karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >Let's see how North America does 15 years into its HDTV transition.
>
> If you based your predictions on its transition to the metric
> system...

Even Joe Sixpack can see the advantage of HDTV when it is sitting in front
of him, but going metric has far less obvious benefits and some really
obvious disadvantages...the sheer volume of US roads makes the cost of
changing signs to be a multi-billion dollar undertaking with no real
benefits.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/InstallVirus.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 5:21:33 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:52:30 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>going metric has far less obvious benefits and some really
>obvious disadvantages...

Such as? I lived in Japan, and all us ex-pats used metric all day,
every day, no matter where we were from originally. It's easy. And
useful. And mostly logical. (Water freezes at 32? And boils at 212?
WTF??)

>the sheer volume of US roads makes the cost of
>changing signs to be a multi-billion dollar undertaking with no real
>benefits.

You'd only have to do it once, How much gets spent on other dumb stuff
by a government anyway?

But this is way off topic, so please consider my questions to be
rhetorical.

My main, original point was that 14 years could be practically forever
(the whole Internet industry has pretty much sprung up in that time)
or no time at all (wasn't it in th '70s that electric cars were
supposed to debut?), depending on a lot more things than just the
merits of a given technology. That Japan didn't exactly take the world
by storm with Hi-Vision is due in much larger part to
behind-the-scenes squabbling between countries and multinationals than
whether it was a good system or not. Point being, the US (OK, all of
North America) is often good at *talking* a good game, but isn't
always that quick to *do* anything. And when it finally does
something, it's with much self-congratulation and ignoring of the
quite strides taken by others while all the talking was going on.

Fact is, we all coulda had HD about a decade ago if government and
industry hadn't stymied attempts by others to popularize the
technology then.
April 27, 2004 6:05:15 AM

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

"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
news:kncr80tmaf1n6736c61oi6867uqvl4n273@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:52:30 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>>going metric has far less obvious benefits and some really
>>obvious disadvantages...
>
> Such as? I lived in Japan, and all us ex-pats used metric all day,
> every day, no matter where we were from originally. It's easy. And
> useful. And mostly logical. (Water freezes at 32? And boils at 212?
> WTF??)
>
>>the sheer volume of US roads makes the cost of
>>changing signs to be a multi-billion dollar undertaking with no real
>>benefits.
>
> You'd only have to do it once, How much gets spent on other dumb stuff
> by a government anyway?
>
> But this is way off topic, so please consider my questions to be
> rhetorical.
>
> My main, original point was that 14 years could be practically forever
> (the whole Internet industry has pretty much sprung up in that time)
> or no time at all (wasn't it in th '70s that electric cars were
> supposed to debut?), depending on a lot more things than just the
> merits of a given technology. That Japan didn't exactly take the world
> by storm with Hi-Vision is due in much larger part to
> behind-the-scenes squabbling between countries and multinationals than
> whether it was a good system or not. Point being, the US (OK, all of
> North America) is often good at *talking* a good game, but isn't
> always that quick to *do* anything. And when it finally does
> something, it's with much self-congratulation and ignoring of the
> quite strides taken by others while all the talking was going on.
>
> Fact is, we all coulda had HD about a decade ago if government and
> industry hadn't stymied attempts by others to popularize the
> technology then.

The good old USA was in the process of converting the interstates to pure
metric, then President Carter got about 24 letters in protest and he ordered
the plug pulled.

As for High Vision, when the US formed a committee to set HDTV standards,
the 1080 interlaced analog system used in Japan was considered. At the last
second a small academic group came along and suggested that digital
technology could and should be adopted. The existence of 1080 interlaced
hardware from Japan is like the major reason why pure progressive scan modes
were not selected for the US standard.

Richard.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 3:58:10 PM

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

What's the difference in 1080i analog and 1080i digital? More specific
how can you measure 1080i when the term 1080i implies a fixed
resolution (e.g. 1920x1080) which also implies digital as analog
behaves more in flux pattern than aboslute pixels.

-Jeremy

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<vdjjc.20546$X14.7226@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
> news:kncr80tmaf1n6736c61oi6867uqvl4n273@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:52:30 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> >
> >>going metric has far less obvious benefits and some really
> >>obvious disadvantages...
> >
> > Such as? I lived in Japan, and all us ex-pats used metric all day,
> > every day, no matter where we were from originally. It's easy. And
> > useful. And mostly logical. (Water freezes at 32? And boils at 212?
> > WTF??)
> >
> >>the sheer volume of US roads makes the cost of
> >>changing signs to be a multi-billion dollar undertaking with no real
> >>benefits.
> >
> > You'd only have to do it once, How much gets spent on other dumb stuff
> > by a government anyway?
> >
> > But this is way off topic, so please consider my questions to be
> > rhetorical.
> >
> > My main, original point was that 14 years could be practically forever
> > (the whole Internet industry has pretty much sprung up in that time)
> > or no time at all (wasn't it in th '70s that electric cars were
> > supposed to debut?), depending on a lot more things than just the
> > merits of a given technology. That Japan didn't exactly take the world
> > by storm with Hi-Vision is due in much larger part to
> > behind-the-scenes squabbling between countries and multinationals than
> > whether it was a good system or not. Point being, the US (OK, all of
> > North America) is often good at *talking* a good game, but isn't
> > always that quick to *do* anything. And when it finally does
> > something, it's with much self-congratulation and ignoring of the
> > quite strides taken by others while all the talking was going on.
> >
> > Fact is, we all coulda had HD about a decade ago if government and
> > industry hadn't stymied attempts by others to popularize the
> > technology then.
>
> The good old USA was in the process of converting the interstates to pure
> metric, then President Carter got about 24 letters in protest and he ordered
> the plug pulled.
>
> As for High Vision, when the US formed a committee to set HDTV standards,
> the 1080 interlaced analog system used in Japan was considered. At the last
> second a small academic group came along and suggested that digital
> technology could and should be adopted. The existence of 1080 interlaced
> hardware from Japan is like the major reason why pure progressive scan modes
> were not selected for the US standard.
>
> Richard.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 4:51:18 PM

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

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<kncr80tmaf1n6736c61oi6867uqvl4n273@4ax.com>...
> ...
> Fact is, we all coulda had HD about a decade ago if government and
> industry hadn't stymied attempts by others to popularize the
> technology then.

This is revisionist history with a vengeance. You have completely
ignored the cost factor. If we just wanted an HDTV system that only
hotels, bars and rich institutions could afford, then of course we
could have adopted the analog Hi-vision system. If you think screen
prices are (or recently were) outrageous now, imagine buying one of
them five or more years ago. How about the price of digital storage at
home or even at a TV station for a one hour, 10 gigabyte program?
Today that is less than $10 but how much was it five years ago or even
more dramatically in the 80's?

When Japan decided it was time to make a major investment in what was
called the Fifth Generation computing project, the US decided not to
challenge it with a similar effort. With hindsight I think most would
agree that the US made the right decision. In the case of Hi-vision
HDTV I think a similar case can be made against its adoption without
any need to suggest ulterior motives. In fact I think it is
disingenuous to suggest the significance of such motives.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 5:24:31 PM

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

"Steve Bryan" <steve_bryan@mac.com> wrote in message
news:10be2ecc.0404271151.168c48e0@posting.google.com...
> This is revisionist history with a vengeance. You have completely
> ignored the cost factor. If we just wanted an HDTV system that only
> hotels, bars and rich institutions could afford, then of course we
> could have adopted the analog Hi-vision system. If you think screen
> prices are (or recently were) outrageous now, imagine buying one of
> them five or more years ago. How about the price of digital storage at
> home or even at a TV station for a one hour, 10 gigabyte program?
> Today that is less than $10 but how much was it five years ago or even
> more dramatically in the 80's?

Even wiser decision would be basing HDTV entirely on PC platform. PC
hardware costs virtually nothing today. All what is required is providing
ultra-high bandwidth channels for content delivery. Instead we have stupid
mix of PC and TV standards, and people wonder why their brand new expensive
16:9 sets show stretched and distorted 4:3 picture in it.
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 10:09:50 PM

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

jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in message news:<b0738dc6.0404271058.766d1cf7@posting.google.com>...
> What's the difference in 1080i analog and 1080i digital? More specific
> how can you measure 1080i when the term 1080i implies a fixed
> resolution (e.g. 1920x1080) which also implies digital as analog
> behaves more in flux pattern than aboslute pixels.
>
> -Jeremy

The previous NTSC analog standard also includes an integer number of
scan lines. In that case it was 480 interlaced lines. It really does
scan 480 lines to build its image. The higher resolution standards,
analog and digital, use 1080 scan lines and draw them interlaced.
Along each scan line the information is encoded analog or digital
depending on the system.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:52:22 AM

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

On 27 Apr 2004 12:51:18 -0700, steve_bryan@mac.com (Steve Bryan)
wrote:

>Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<kncr80tmaf1n6736c61oi6867uqvl4n273@4ax.com>...
>> ...
>> Fact is, we all coulda had HD about a decade ago if government and
>> industry hadn't stymied attempts by others to popularize the
>> technology then.
>
>This is revisionist history with a vengeance. You have completely
>ignored the cost factor.

Not *completely*. Sure, Hi-Vision was a premium system at a premium
price. But it was about as affordable in 1996 to buy a Hi-Vision TV as
it is to buy an (admittedly much larger) HDTV now. Hi-Vision
laserdiscs were available (not many, but "Back to the Future" was, for
instance). It wasn't so horrifically expensive as you suggest. And
just having it around made 16:9 more popular (I feel), and therefore
dropped the price at the low end faster. My wife (far from being a
rabid techno-nerd) bought her first widescreen TV in 1995 -- for her
bedroom. Her family already had one in the living room...

>In the case of Hi-vision
>HDTV I think a similar case can be made against its adoption without
>any need to suggest ulterior motives. In fact I think it is
>disingenuous to suggest the significance of such motives.

Perhaps on the government end, but the movie industry end? I think
it's disingenuous to suggest anything but high-level meddling on their
part, serving to delay HD software titles (specifically, HD-DVD
movies) indefinitely. And HD would catch on a whole pile quicker if
you could wander into your local Wal-Mart and pick up a 1080/24p
HD-DVD title for $30.

P.S. It's not lost on me that Japan's digital system is basically ATSC
with AAC audio. But with 14 years' experience, the average Japanese
consumer knows a lot better what to expect from HD than his (c'mon,
face it: it's mostly guys we're talkin' about) North American
counterpart. You don't see a lot of Japanese complaining about black
bars taking up their screens, for example...
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:58:37 AM

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

On 27 Apr 2004 18:09:50 -0700, steve_bryan@mac.com (Steve Bryan)
wrote:

>jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in message news:<b0738dc6.0404271058.766d1cf7@posting.google.com>...
>> What's the difference in 1080i analog and 1080i digital? More specific
>> how can you measure 1080i when the term 1080i implies a fixed
>> resolution (e.g. 1920x1080) which also implies digital as analog
>> behaves more in flux pattern than aboslute pixels.
>>
>> -Jeremy
>
>The previous NTSC analog standard also includes an integer number of
>scan lines. In that case it was 480 interlaced lines. It really does
>scan 480 lines to build its image. The higher resolution standards,
>analog and digital, use 1080 scan lines and draw them interlaced.
>Along each scan line the information is encoded analog or digital
>depending on the system.

To be completely pedantic about it, the total number of NTSC scan
lines is actually 525. Hi-Vision was 1150. The number of *viewable*
(i.e. image) NTSC scan lines is about 486; don't know what the
Hi-Vision viewable number is.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 10:11:34 PM

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

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<kncr80tmaf1n6736c61oi6867uqvl4n273@4ax.com>...

> Fact is, we all coulda had HD about a decade ago if government and
> industry hadn't stymied attempts by others to popularize the
> technology then.

The major difference between the US and Japan market is the geographic
size of the coverage area. In order to popularize some technology,
the business need to rebuild the support infrastructure on a much
bigger scale. A wrong choice in technology will get you stuck for
even because it cost 100x as much to replace all the broadcast
equipment if you choose to change your mind. The industry did the
right thing to learn from mistakes in the Japanese market before
choosing the right approach for the US.

For example, in Japanese, you may be able to switch to a different
systems if the few national network agreed to switch, you may need to
swap 100 sets of equipment. In the US, a few thousand stations need
to replace the expensive equipment each time you change your mind.

The same approach to test the market is widely use in cellular phone
technology. The cell phones that Americans use on the US continent
are often 2 to 5 years behind those in use in China and Japan. A
bigger country simply needs longer time to change momentum!!!
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 9:06:33 AM

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

Caloonese wrote:


>
> The same approach to test the market is widely use in cellular phone
> technology. The cell phones that Americans use on the US continent
> are often 2 to 5 years behind those in use in China and Japan. A
> bigger country simply needs longer time to change momentum!!!

China is about the same size as the US in land area. It has a much
larger population and is the largest cell phone market in the world. So
I would subtract China from your argument.

Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700
full power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another
1700 digital TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as
the transition ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very
rugged so they have more transmitters by far than the entire US.

I am afraid your excuses are lame. The US is just behind.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 3:40:30 PM

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

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700 full
> power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another 1700 digital
> TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as the transition
> ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very rugged so they have
> more transmitters by far than the entire US.

Speaking as someone who has *lived* in Japan (and still owns a Japanese
channel analog TV from that time), I doubt that any American would want to
have Japan's television (or other) infrastructure in the US.

Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a feature. I'll bet
that most of them are probably NHK on channel 1. [Japanese channels 1-4
have no correspondence to US channels (you might pick up Japan channel 4
on a US TV set if you can crank the fine tuning on channel 7 low enough);
5-12 roughly correspond to US 7-13 (again, some fine tuning is needed on
some channels), and 13-62 correspond to US 14-63.]

TV in Japan is much better than in Europe, but still inferior to the US.
If you don't live in a city and don't have satellite, you either don't
have TV or you're stuck with NHK.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 4:13:57 PM

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

Though China is big, I don't think they need to provide cell phone
coverage to every corner of China. China is still like a third world
country outside of a few major cities. The dense population in China
also makes their infrastructure investment more cost effective. More
than 16 million people are concentrated around the city of Shanghai.
The US probably have to install 5 times the equipments to cover the
same number of customers when the customers are spreaded out
geographically. Besides, the landline infrastructure in the US is so
developed that customers buy cellphone because of the convenience. In
China, the landlines are not there, customers buy cellphone because
that is their only choice. According to a news article I read, it
costs over US$400 to install a landline to a home in China. It is
virtually free to add a cellphone. The choice is obvious, and the
demand is out of necessity and it is much higher than the US. That
explains the cutting edge cellphones all appear in Asia first.

I thought Japan's HDTV used satellite, the ruggedness was not an
issue. One single satellite should be sufficient for the entire
Japan. Can you do the same with the US? Would you try out something
new ans unproven by launching a few satellites to test the market?


Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<tfGkc.1266$Hs1.71@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Caloonese wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The same approach to test the market is widely use in cellular phone
> > technology. The cell phones that Americans use on the US continent
> > are often 2 to 5 years behind those in use in China and Japan. A
> > bigger country simply needs longer time to change momentum!!!
>
> China is about the same size as the US in land area. It has a much
> larger population and is the largest cell phone market in the world. So
> I would subtract China from your argument.
>
> Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700
> full power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another
> 1700 digital TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as
> the transition ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very
> rugged so they have more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>
> I am afraid your excuses are lame. The US is just behind.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 12:58:19 AM

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

The cell phone infrastructure in China looks like it covers the
populated eastern half of the country like a blanket.

Population map
http://archives.tconline.org/Stories/June02/map1995.htm

Cell coverage map
http://www.cellular-news.com/coverage/china.shtml

The two things that are different is their larger population and their
lower disposable income.

Caloonese wrote:

> Though China is big, I don't think they need to provide cell phone
> coverage to every corner of China. China is still like a third world
> country outside of a few major cities. The dense population in China
> also makes their infrastructure investment more cost effective. More
> than 16 million people are concentrated around the city of Shanghai.
> The US probably have to install 5 times the equipments to cover the
> same number of customers when the customers are spreaded out
> geographically. Besides, the landline infrastructure in the US is so
> developed that customers buy cellphone because of the convenience. In
> China, the landlines are not there, customers buy cellphone because
> that is their only choice. According to a news article I read, it
> costs over US$400 to install a landline to a home in China. It is
> virtually free to add a cellphone. The choice is obvious, and the
> demand is out of necessity and it is much higher than the US. That
> explains the cutting edge cellphones all appear in Asia first.


> I thought Japan's HDTV used satellite, the ruggedness was not an
> issue. One single satellite should be sufficient for the entire
> Japan. Can you do the same with the US? Would you try out something
> new ans unproven by launching a few satellites to test the market?

Japan has had an analog HDTV satellite system since 1994. They began
broadcasting a terrestrial HDTV system in three cities in December 2003.
They have already sold over a million HDTV sets (92%) or HDTV receivers.

>
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<tfGkc.1266$Hs1.71@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Caloonese wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The same approach to test the market is widely use in cellular phone
>>>technology. The cell phones that Americans use on the US continent
>>>are often 2 to 5 years behind those in use in China and Japan. A
>>>bigger country simply needs longer time to change momentum!!!
>>
>>China is about the same size as the US in land area. It has a much
>>larger population and is the largest cell phone market in the world. So
>>I would subtract China from your argument.
>>
>>Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700
>>full power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another
>>1700 digital TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as
>>the transition ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very
>>rugged so they have more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>>
>>I am afraid your excuses are lame. The US is just behind.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 11:12:59 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
> ...
> Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700
> full power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another
> 1700 digital TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as
> the transition ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very
> rugged so they have more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>
> I am afraid your excuses are lame. The US is just behind.

I wouldn't argue with someone who would say that leadership in HDTV is
a matter of complete indifference. But if that is the topic how could
you possibly reach your conclusion from these facts? Why would it
matter how many analog transmitters there are? HDTV is available free
and over the air from about 1,000 terrestrial transmitters in the US
currently. Last I heard it was available from exactly zero
transmitters in Japan (it was my impression that Hivision has been
discontinued) The number of free sources include PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC,
WB and UPN. A number of pay sources are available in many places by
cable or satellite and include HBO, Showtime, HDNet, Discovery, ESPN,
and others. This includes a number of satellites and services. There
seems to be one satellite HDTV service available in Japan. Do you
think anyone is duped by your ridiculous and unsupported claim that
the US is behind?

I am certain that in time Japan will be doing quite well in providing
HDTV to Japanese citizens. But please give them time and don't make
ridiculous, unsupportable claims. I have yet to hear any report or
evidence that anywhere else has near the availability of HDTV that we
have in the US.

Anyone with a fairly recent PC in the US can buy an antenna ($50), PCI
card ($150 - $200) and he will be able to view HDTV on his computer
monitor and record it to his hard drive. All this with no subscription
fee and dozens of programs each week (not an exaggeration, I quickly
counted over 50 next week). Why is this as widely known as highly
classified military secrets and will it ever change? I remember when
MP3 music was a phenomenon of trivial proportions and many would
confidently assert that people will never use a computer to manage and
listen to music. As hard drives get ever larger I suppose something
similar could happen with video that has happened with audio. It
doesn't hurt that home networks are increasingly deployed and they are
fast enough to support HDTV.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 3:16:38 AM

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

Mark,

You're probably the only one in this NG who can answer a question I
have... How many channels are available in HD in Japan (Tokyo or any
other major city you can name). I'm curious to know what HD options I
would have in Japan by satellite or over-the-air.

Thanks,

-Jeremy


Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.60.0405011103320.21094@shiva1.cac.washington.edu>...
> On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> > Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700 full
> > power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another 1700 digital
> > TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as the transition
> > ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very rugged so they have
> > more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>
> Speaking as someone who has *lived* in Japan (and still owns a Japanese
> channel analog TV from that time), I doubt that any American would want to
> have Japan's television (or other) infrastructure in the US.
>
> Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a feature. I'll bet
> that most of them are probably NHK on channel 1. [Japanese channels 1-4
> have no correspondence to US channels (you might pick up Japan channel 4
> on a US TV set if you can crank the fine tuning on channel 7 low enough);
> 5-12 roughly correspond to US 7-13 (again, some fine tuning is needed on
> some channels), and 13-62 correspond to US 14-63.]
>
> TV in Japan is much better than in Europe, but still inferior to the US.
> If you don't live in a city and don't have satellite, you either don't
> have TV or you're stuck with NHK.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 8:33:15 AM

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

Steve Bryan wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
>
>>...
>>Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700
>>full power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another
>>1700 digital TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as
>>the transition ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very
>>rugged so they have more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>>
>>I am afraid your excuses are lame. The US is just behind.
>
>
> I wouldn't argue with someone who would say that leadership in HDTV is
> a matter of complete indifference. But if that is the topic how could
> you possibly reach your conclusion from these facts? Why would it
> matter how many analog transmitters there are?

The number of analog transmitters mattered in my answer to a previous
post by Caloonese who argued that Japan had a very limited number of
transmitters. You will have to read that post to understand my post.


HDTV is available free
> and over the air from about 1,000 terrestrial transmitters in the US
> currently. Last I heard it was available from exactly zero
> transmitters in Japan (it was my impression that Hivision has been
> discontinued)

Japan started broadcasting over the air free HDTV on 22 stations in
three cities in December 2003. Since I believe that they are using SFN's
with Nagoya having at least three sites this 22 stations may actually be
66 transmitters or more.

The number of free sources include PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC,
> WB and UPN. A number of pay sources are available in many places by
> cable or satellite and include HBO, Showtime, HDNet, Discovery, ESPN,
> and others. This includes a number of satellites and services. There
> seems to be one satellite HDTV service available in Japan. Do you
> think anyone is duped by your ridiculous and unsupported claim that
> the US is behind?

As I have stated many times before,

ONE, I am talking about OTA digital broadcasting not the resolution
HDTV. HDTV is and will do fine on cable and satellite and even over
advanced IP networks. OTA DTV is not doing well in the US. No one is
advertising it. No one is advertising OTA receivers. Few are buying OTA
receivers. If they were would the FCC have decided on MANDATING them?

TWO, the number of transmitters is irrelevant. It is the number of
receivers sold and then actually used that matters and it is the ONLY
thing that matters. The ONLY reason that 1000 transmitters are
transmitting OTA DTV is because if the broadcasters did not do it they
risk losing their spectrum and even more important, ALL IMPORTANT, the
possibility of losing must carry on cable or of not having their more
recent request of must carry of all their multicast DTV signals on cable.

HINT HINT!!! broadcasters are revving up to do lots of multicast stuff.
It is an obsession with them, it is the center of their universe.

So to sum it up HDTV delivery via OTA terrestrial broadcasting is NOT
doing so well on the customer buying of the receivers side and the
outlook for programming doesn't look so good if you want to actually pay
attention to what the broadcasters are talking about doing.

On the other hand HDTV is doing great on cable and satellite and will do
better.

>
> I am certain that in time Japan will be doing quite well in providing
> HDTV to Japanese citizens. But please give them time and don't make
> ridiculous, unsupportable claims. I have yet to hear any report or
> evidence that anywhere else has near the availability of HDTV that we
> have in the US.

I don't make unsubstantiated claims. The Japanese have bought over a
million HDTV sets since just before and after the start of HDTV
terrestrial broadcasting started in December of last year or only five
months ago. Whatever the content they are receiving is their business.
All I know is that with a lot more content, YOUR ASSERTION, and all of
1000 terrestrial broadcast stations on the air FOR SOME REASON the
Japanese are doing incredibly better than the US is in OTA DTV
broadcasting of HDTV content.

So lets assume that they have LOUSY CONTENT in Japan and we know they
ONLY have at most something over 66 transmitters in ONLY three cities,
NAGOYA, Tokyo and Osaka. Please explain to me why they have sold over
ONE million HDTV TV sets (integrated 92%) and HDTV receivers (8%)?

Your assertion suggest that you think we are doing better with OTA DTV
delivery of HDTV because we have more transmitters and more and better
programming. That would suggest that we would have far higher sales of
OTA receivers. But the opposite is true. We have anemic sales of
receivers so bad in fact that our FREE and representative government has
seen fit to FORCE us to buy receivers we don't need, receivers we have
refused to buy FREELY and which no FREE market retailer or manufacturer
sees fit to advertise.

And while we have these ANEMIC sales of receivers other countries are
having amazing record breaking sales of HDTV receivers both integrated
and free standing.
>
> Anyone with a fairly recent PC in the US can buy an antenna ($50), PCI
> card ($150 - $200) and he will be able to view HDTV on his computer
> monitor and record it to his hard drive. All this with no subscription
> fee and dozens of programs each week (not an exaggeration, I quickly
> counted over 50 next week). Why is this as widely known as highly
> classified military secrets and will it ever change? I remember when
> MP3 music was a phenomenon of trivial proportions and many would
> confidently assert that people will never use a computer to manage and
> listen to music. As hard drives get ever larger I suppose something
> similar could happen with video that has happened with audio. It
> doesn't hurt that home networks are increasingly deployed and they are
> fast enough to support HDTV.

So why are not people buying them? Why are they not being advertised?
Where is all the hoopla?

While lots of early adopters are all excited the manufacturers are
decidedly not very excited about OTA. Again not talking about HDTV which
is again doing fine on cable and satellite. OTA DTV is hurting. It is
not going anywhere and it will not go anywhere even after the Mandate
kicks in.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 3:05:27 PM

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

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> You say that "Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a feature."
> and you follow that up with " If you don't live in a city and don't have
> satellite, you either don't have TV or you're stuck with NHK."
>
> The two statements are contradictory. If you have a major problem receiving
> OTA TV in Japan that would argue that they need more transmitters not less.

No. It means that they need fewer transmitters that cover a wider area,
instead of lots of little transmitters that cover tiny areas. The idea of
"lots of little transmitters" does not scale with many broadcasters each
with unique content.

Each transmitter has fixed costs. It's much more expensive to cover an
area with low-power transmitters.

What works for cellular does not work for TV. Cellular has roaming; and,
in most of the world, only one cellular system (generally GSM). The
cellular industry in North America is rapidly consolidating to fewer
companies and fewer cellular systems (currently we have no less than 5
systems!).

It isn't surprising that Europe and Asia have far fewer TV channels than
North America. In very large cities like Tokyo or Osaka, there are about
10 TV stations, comparable to a mid-sized American city.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 4:16:30 PM

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

On Mon, 3 May 2004, John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <1rvlc.4366$Hs1.3452@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Japan has 22 stations on the air doing HDTV terrestrially in Osaka,
>> Tokyo and Nagoya.
> That would be the amount of DTV as in one (perhaps two) major
> US cities. Remember: the US probably has over 1000 such
> stations... The population of Japan isn't 50 times smaller
> than that of the US.

But in Bob's little world, it's a great success because it's COFDM so
video advertisements can be beamed to city buses.

The Japanese have always been early adopters of the latest gizmo, many of
which subsequently failed miserably in the rest of the world. Remember
DAT? Mini-Disc? Data Discman? Hi-8? Standalone wordprocessors?

In the HDTV world, there's Japan's analog HD system which I believe is now
deceased. But they had it years ago.

HDTV will likely be a success in Japan eventually. But they have a long
way to go before they reach anything near the deployment of HDTV in the
US. A mere 22 OTA stations in Osaka, Tokyo, and Nagoya means that most
programming in those three cities remains analog only, not to mention the
rest of the country.

Whereas in the US, many cities already have full DTV coverage. The
percentage of OTA network programming that is HDTV is comparable to color
TV in the early 1960s. Many of Fox's prime-time shows are widescreen,
albeit still SD.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 7:14:16 PM

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

You say that "Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a
feature." and you follow that up with " If you don't live in a city and
don't have satellite, you either don't have TV or you're stuck with NHK."

The two statements are contradictory. If you have a major problem
receiving OTA TV in Japan that would argue that they need more
transmitters not less. You make a statement but do not explain what you
mean by "bug, not a feature".

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700
>> full power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another
>> 1700 digital TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as
>> the transition ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very
>> rugged so they have more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>
>
> Speaking as someone who has *lived* in Japan (and still owns a Japanese
> channel analog TV from that time), I doubt that any American would want
> to have Japan's television (or other) infrastructure in the US.
>
> Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a feature. I'll bet
> that most of them are probably NHK on channel 1. [Japanese channels 1-4
> have no correspondence to US channels (you might pick up Japan channel 4
> on a US TV set if you can crank the fine tuning on channel 7 low
> enough); 5-12 roughly correspond to US 7-13 (again, some fine tuning is
> needed on some channels), and 13-62 correspond to US 14-63.]
>
> TV in Japan is much better than in Europe, but still inferior to the US.
> If you don't live in a city and don't have satellite, you either don't
> have TV or you're stuck with NHK.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 9:37:01 PM

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

Japan has 22 stations on the air doing HDTV terrestrially in Osaka,
Tokyo and Nagoya.

JDeats wrote:

> Mark,
>
> You're probably the only one in this NG who can answer a question I
> have... How many channels are available in HD in Japan (Tokyo or any
> other major city you can name). I'm curious to know what HD options I
> would have in Japan by satellite or over-the-air.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.60.0405011103320.21094@shiva1.cac.washington.edu>...
>
>>On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>>Japan has 15,000 terrestrial analog TV transmitters. The US had 1700 full
>>>power and 5000 translator transmitters operational plus another 1700 digital
>>>TV transmitters but these will replace the analog 1700 as the transition
>>>ends. Japan is about as big as California but is very rugged so they have
>>>more transmitters by far than the entire US.
>>
>>Speaking as someone who has *lived* in Japan (and still owns a Japanese
>>channel analog TV from that time), I doubt that any American would want to
>>have Japan's television (or other) infrastructure in the US.
>>
>>Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a feature. I'll bet
>>that most of them are probably NHK on channel 1. [Japanese channels 1-4
>>have no correspondence to US channels (you might pick up Japan channel 4
>>on a US TV set if you can crank the fine tuning on channel 7 low enough);
>>5-12 roughly correspond to US 7-13 (again, some fine tuning is needed on
>>some channels), and 13-62 correspond to US 14-63.]
>>
>>TV in Japan is much better than in Europe, but still inferior to the US.
>>If you don't live in a city and don't have satellite, you either don't
>>have TV or you're stuck with NHK.
>>
>>-- Mark --
>>
>>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 10:02:08 PM

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

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> I guess the Japanese are just stupid. They don't know that they could cover
> their entire country with only a few transmitters if they just increased the
> power. Those mountains that seem to be everywhere would not be a problem I
> guess.

It's politics, not stupidity; TV stations are licensed to serve a single
municipality instead of a region.

The population centers aren't in the mountains. They're largely in the
coastal areas, particularly in the Kantou plain, Kansai, Hokuriku, etc.
The mountainous areas are largely uninhabited.

If you knew anything about Japan, you would know that Japan rarely does
anything the same as any other country. They use cellular systems found
nowhere else in the world. They use 100V (that's right, 100 volt) AC
power that's 60Hz in half the country and 50Hz in the other half. They
did adopt NTSC System M for television, but on different frequencies (all
other NTSC countries use the US frequencies). Their FM radio band is on
different frequencies.

The result is that foreign consumer electronics are rarely usable in
Japan. This includes consumer electronics made in Japan. Not
surprisingly, the domestic Japanese version of what is otherwise the exact
same gizmo is invariably 40-100% more expensive than the US version.

Occasionally, you will find that the Japanese produce a device that is
suitable for use in both the US and Japan; this is the case with devices
that people travel with such as laptop computers and camcorders.
However, you will still find there's something to make the less expensive
"foreign" version less suitable than the domestic version in Japan.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 10:39:22 PM

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

In article <1rvlc.4366$Hs1.3452@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Japan has 22 stations on the air doing HDTV terrestrially in Osaka,
> Tokyo and Nagoya.
>
That would be the amount of DTV as in one (perhaps two) major
US cities. Remember: the US probably has over 1000 such
stations... The population of Japan isn't 50 times smaller
than that of the US.

John
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:11:11 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fYjlc.3899$V97.3665@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Steve Bryan wrote:
> > Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
> >
> >...
> >in fact that our FREE and representative government has
> >seen fit to FORCE us to buy receivers we don't need

It is inclusions of bald faced lies like this that make me skeptical
of everything else you claim. You can buy HD monitors now and will
continue to be able to do so in the future. What the FCC mandate
prevents is cheap ass vendors selling expensive screens which they
claim to be "HD ready" but only including a legacy NTSC tuner. Later
the unsuspecting consumer learns that despite the likelihood that ATSC
signals may abound the retailer has sold him an 'incomplete' product.
As long as the product is labeled a monitor there will be no problem
selling it. Calling it a (HD)TV but only including a soon to be
discontinued tuner will no longer be an option.

Your constant drumbeat of claims that 8VSB not working are challenged
every time you make them by many people with no financial interest but
personal experience that disagrees with your extravagent claims. Your
claims of trouble free implementation of HDTV using COFDM are usually
carefully worded insignificant claims about DTV made to appear by
context to be about HDTV. Even in the more specific case of DTV they
don't seem to be accurate if one reads the comments of people in those
markets actually trying to get their devices to work. That is part of
the wonder of the internet. One can read the UK newsgroups and reach
his own conclusions about how well COFDM is working in the real world
without rose-colored glasses.

Unlike Japan where you have to be a resident of one of three cities,
you can receive free HDTV in any large city and many not so large
cities in the USA. The availability of HDTV is greater in the USA than
in any other country in the world. We have even inadvertently deployed
tens of millions of high resolution monitors capable of displaying the
new higher definition TV pictures. They are called computer monitors
and more money is spent buying them every year than all the TV sets
purchased. The assumption that the next generation of TV viewing will
be CE centric like the previous generation is already obviously wrong.
The only question is how wrong it is. Remember when it was thought the
French had invented the future with all their Minitel terminals? Now
you think the number of dumb as a doorknob HDTV's in Japan is all that
matters. (No offense intended about HDTV's in Japan or the US for that
matter. It is just that conventional sets that just have higher
resolution are a rather uninteresting development).
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:26:54 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <1rvlc.4366$Hs1.3452@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Japan has 22 stations on the air doing HDTV terrestrially in Osaka,
>>Tokyo and Nagoya.
>>
>
> That would be the amount of DTV as in one (perhaps two) major
> US cities. Remember: the US probably has over 1000 such
> stations... The population of Japan isn't 50 times smaller
> than that of the US.
>
> John

That is exactly the point. Japan has few HDTV stations in only 3 cities
with very little content while we have 1000 plus stations in all major
cities with twice the population and lots of content. Japan is also
heavily into cable and satellite.

So you would expect that in Japan terrestrial broadcasting would be a
dismal failure and in the US the opposite would be true, terrestrial
broadcasting should be a resounding success in the US.

But in Japan they have sold over a million HDTV sets with either
terrestrial receivers built in (92%) or stand alone (8%) in only FIVE
months. How could this be possible in only the three cities of Nagoya,
Tokyo and Osaka? Especially since they have few stations and poor content.

Why in the US meanwhile 9 out of 10 buyers of actually HDTV sets
POINTEDLY DON'T BUY OTA receivers. We have MANY stations, we have a LOT
of content and you say that is the key.

We are we failing with OTA DTV in the US?????

I humbly suggest that it is the lousy modulation, the rooftop antennas
and the rotors.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:03:58 AM

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

In article <iWxlc.5438$V97.250@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>> In article <1rvlc.4366$Hs1.3452@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>Japan has 22 stations on the air doing HDTV terrestrially in Osaka,
>>>Tokyo and Nagoya.
>>>
>>
>> That would be the amount of DTV as in one (perhaps two) major
>> US cities. Remember: the US probably has over 1000 such
>> stations... The population of Japan isn't 50 times smaller
>> than that of the US.
>>
>> John
>
> That is exactly the point. Japan has few HDTV stations in only 3 cities
> with very little content while we have 1000 plus stations in all major
> cities with twice the population and lots of content. Japan is also
> heavily into cable and satellite.
>
This shows that US HDTV is quite successful. Even after over a decade
of various kinds of HDTV in Japan, it hasn't been quite as well received
as one might expect. After my first local HDTV signal could be received
in about 1998, practically all new scripted network shows are now in
HDTV (ignoring Fox) here in the US. Geesh, even the UPN Star Trek is
in HDTV (quite beautiful, actually.)

>
> Why in the US meanwhile 9 out of 10 buyers of actually HDTV sets
> POINTEDLY DON'T BUY OTA receivers. We have MANY stations, we have a LOT
> of content and you say that is the key.
>
Remember: your ongoing FUD contributes to the fear about receiving
the VERY EASY to receive US HDTV signal. Some people are in the
CATV/Satellite 'pig' syndrome, but getting HDTV doesn't necessarily
require paying the pig. You have done a good job of dyseducating the
American public (or, at least contributed to the dyseducation.)

On the other hand, you seem to want to supply an inferior (non-HDTV)
product, yet make incremental income on it. Your interests are NOT
helpful for HDTV.

John
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:49:27 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> You say that "Japan having 15,000 TV transmitters is a bug, not a
>> feature." and you follow that up with " If you don't live in a city
>> and don't have satellite, you either don't have TV or you're stuck
>> with NHK."
>>
>> The two statements are contradictory. If you have a major problem
>> receiving OTA TV in Japan that would argue that they need more
>> transmitters not less.
>
>
> No. It means that they need fewer transmitters that cover a wider area,
> instead of lots of little transmitters that cover tiny areas. The idea
> of "lots of little transmitters" does not scale with many broadcasters
> each with unique content.
>
> Each transmitter has fixed costs. It's much more expensive to cover an
> area with low-power transmitters.

I guess the Japanese are just stupid. They don't know that they could
cover their entire country with only a few transmitters if they just
increased the power. Those mountains that seem to be everywhere would
not be a problem I guess.

Actually it is less expensive to use low power transmitters to cover an
area in many cases. Especially if your aim is to ACTUALLY provide people
in the coverage area with the ability to receive. If you are just trying
to cover your ass so that you get must carry like broadcasters in the US
are doing well the big stick approach makes it easier. You don't have to
think or change your way of doing business or keep up with technology
like the rest of the world.

Unfortunately for the Japanese they have to keep up with the technology
or even get ahead of it.
>
> What works for cellular does not work for TV. Cellular has roaming;
> and, in most of the world, only one cellular system (generally GSM).
> The cellular industry in North America is rapidly consolidating to fewer
> companies and fewer cellular systems (currently we have no less than 5
> systems!).
>
> It isn't surprising that Europe and Asia have far fewer TV channels than
> North America. In very large cities like Tokyo or Osaka, there are
> about 10 TV stations, comparable to a mid-sized American city.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 6, 2004 12:28:30 AM

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

Steve Bryan wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fYjlc.3899$V97.3665@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Steve Bryan wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
>>>
>>>...
>>>in fact that our FREE and representative government has
>>>seen fit to FORCE us to buy receivers we don't need
>
>
> It is inclusions of bald faced lies like this that make me skeptical
> of everything else you claim. You can buy HD monitors now and will
> continue to be able to do so in the future. What the FCC mandate
> prevents is cheap ass vendors selling expensive screens which they
> claim to be "HD ready" but only including a legacy NTSC tuner. Later
> the unsuspecting consumer learns that despite the likelihood that ATSC
> signals may abound the retailer has sold him an 'incomplete' product.
> As long as the product is labeled a monitor there will be no problem
> selling it. Calling it a (HD)TV but only including a soon to be
> discontinued tuner will no longer be an option.

Well that is one way of looking at it. I doubt however that the INTENT
of the FCC was to save the consumer from the mistake of buying an HDTV
set that did not have a DTV tuner in it. I am sure that if the FCC could
have found a way to make all HDTV capable monitors include an OTA
receiver they would have done that. The FCC was INTENT was clearly to
have all TV sets capable of receiving digital broadcast so that they
could finish the DTV transition. To the extent that people buy monitors
with no tuners in them the FCC's intent will be thwarted.

If I were a dealer after the mandate kicks in I would heavily advertise
HDTV ready monitors instead of HDTV ready TV sets.
>
> Your constant drumbeat of claims that 8VSB not working are challenged
> every time you make them by many people with no financial interest but
> personal experience that disagrees with your extravagent claims. Your
> claims of trouble free implementation of HDTV using COFDM are usually
> carefully worded insignificant claims about DTV made to appear by
> context to be about HDTV. Even in the more specific case of DTV they
> don't seem to be accurate if one reads the comments of people in those
> markets actually trying to get their devices to work. That is part of
> the wonder of the internet. One can read the UK newsgroups and reach
> his own conclusions about how well COFDM is working in the real world
> without rose-colored glasses.

Well while you are reading the UK newsgroups, where BTW they are still
selling 50,000 receiver a week and expect to sell 200,000 a week before
next Christmas, you should also read the OZ and Berlin newsgroups where
sales have reached over 5% penetration (OZ) and 13% (Berlin). And
compare to our less than ONE%. Then you can look at the time frames. The
US had been at it since 1998, Berlin only since November 2002 an in OX
it has been like 2 years. And make sure you read the GAO report on
Berlin when it comes out in June.

Tell me about the people with "no financial interest". Have they bought
an OTA receiver? If so they have a financial interest. Do they work for
an interested party like LG Ind.? If not how do you know?

On the other hand I agree that many people have a decent experience with
8-VSB. No matter how many times you or others LIE about what I have said
it still stands. MANY people are happy with 8-VSB. That does not mean
that it works as a national modulation since according to the latest
test of the latest 5th generation 8-VSB receivers by an INTERESTED
party, MSTV (very much biased in favor or 8-VSB) still shows that 65% of
the time in test situations 8-VSB offers "unacceptable" reception. I am
VERY sure that if an UNINTERESTED party were to do similar test they
would find that that figure is HIGH!

I further am VERY sure that if a side by side test was done by an
UNINTERESTED party between DVB-T, DMB or ISDB-T and 8-VSB the results
would overwhelmingly favor any of the three over 8-VSB.
>
> Unlike Japan where you have to be a resident of one of three cities,
> you can receive free HDTV in any large city and many not so large
> cities in the USA. The availability of HDTV is greater in the USA than
> in any other country in the world.

I have EMPHASIZED the above point to buttress my argument. Thanks for
pointing it out again. In Japan where they only have three cities so far
since last December when they started terrestrial HDTV, they have
already sold over a million HDTV sets 92% of which were integrated with
ISDB-T COFDM receivers. In five months in a country only 1/3 our size
they are selling OTA HDTV like crazy.

On the other hand in the US where we have almost complete HDTV coverage
and oodles more content people are not buying receivers or integrated
sets. It is so bad here that the FCC has to mandate OTA receivers in an
attempt to get things started.

In judging whether an HDTV OTA digital transition is successful it is
like CRAZY to suggest that lots of content or 100% coverage shows
success. What if NO one is receiving it? Is it successful? The correct
measure of success it how many people buy the receivers and even more
correct is how many use them and even more correct is how many who
bought and use them can easily receive most or all of the stations
broadcasting in their area.

We have even inadvertently deployed
> tens of millions of high resolution monitors capable of displaying the
> new higher definition TV pictures. They are called computer monitors
> and more money is spent buying them every year than all the TV sets
> purchased.

Are you suggesting that the success of OTA HDTV has to look at the sale
of 8-VSB receivers for computers? Are we selling millions of such receivers?

The answer is that we are selling zilch worth of receivers of any kind
in the US and many of the ones that we are selling are not even being
used. (those in sat receivers)

The assumption that the next generation of TV viewing will
> be CE centric like the previous generation is already obviously wrong.
> The only question is how wrong it is. Remember when it was thought the
> French had invented the future with all their Minitel terminals? Now
> you think the number of dumb as a doorknob HDTV's in Japan is all that
> matters. (No offense intended about HDTV's in Japan or the US for that
> matter. It is just that conventional sets that just have higher
> resolution are a rather uninteresting development).

I would agree that computer IP centric reception of TV fare will grow
very fast in the future. Especially over super broadband wireless
networks. All the more reason to use our TV/DTV spectrum better. It
should at least have a modern modulation that works mobile/portable and
is receivable easily without rooftop antennas.
!