Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV in Japan, the Europe and other parts of the world.

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 7:08:35 PM

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

I keep seeing a lot of post regarding the poor state of HDTV in the
US. So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
What's the cost difference in comparable sets (list any popular models
by Sony, Mitsubishi or Hitachi) list cost in Yen and Euro (if you
know).

Regarding over-the-air HD, how many channels are available in the most
popular markets, specifically London and Tokyo. How many channels are
available though subscription options and what is the cost of
satellite or cable in these countries compared to ours.

-Jeremy
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 4:39:44 AM

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

In article <b0738dc6.0404241408.301b82b9@posting.google.com>,
jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) writes:
> I keep seeing a lot of post regarding the poor state of HDTV in the
> US. So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
> What's the cost difference in comparable sets (list any popular models
> by Sony, Mitsubishi or Hitachi) list cost in Yen and Euro (if you
> know).
>
> Regarding over-the-air HD, how many channels are available in the most
> popular markets, specifically London and Tokyo. How many channels are
> available though subscription options and what is the cost of
> satellite or cable in these countries compared to ours.
>
A data point for a medium sized US city: Indianapolis

OTA stations that provide HDTV for new scripted shows:
(* means I haven't normally watched that channel):
WISH(CBS), WTHR(NBC), WRTV(ABC),
WTTV(WB), WNDY(UPN), WFYI*

WXIN(FOX) has done HDTV for parades, but normally
just does the FOX pseudo-480p thing.

In Indy, we have a few 'problems' for the HDTV rollout,
partially due to the needed timeshifting (Indiana is mostly on
Daylight Savings all year as started in the middle 1950s,
effectively moving it from the Central to the Eastern
timezone, but nowadays causing a political and timeshift
complication because we are ALREADY on DST, and moving
the time another hour would be punishing.) Sometimes
the timeshifting setups are messed up, and we miss an
evening of HDTV on some channels.

IMO, if a capital (or major) city in the industrialized
world doesn't have a couple of HDTV stations that broadcast
the material on a regular (essentially daily) basis (for
new, scripted shows), and all new digital receivers in
that area are not capable of receiving (even if downconverting)
then HDTV is still not really 'rolled out.' Unless ALL
digital receivers are capable of receiving the standard
HDTV signal, then HDTV isn't really the standard
OTA broadcast scheme.

John
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 6:06:46 AM

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

On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:

>So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.

One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to the
whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 2:12:53 PM

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

One thing I'm curious about is how many stations are available on a
non-subscription basis? Also, how many are available on subscription
basis (in Japan).

Currently in the US in New York, Chicago or LA you can pull: CBS, NBC,
ABC, PBS, FOX, UPN and WB (that's all the major non-subscription
networks) all over the air (free) in HD that's seven networks
broadcasting most of their prime time in HD. Through subscription I
can get: HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Spice, Bravo, ESPN, Discovery, HDNet,
HDNet Movies, INHD, INHD2. So that's an optional 11 subscription bases
HD channels combined with the seven networks... almost twenty channels
of HD content if I wanted.

If I moved to Japan (Tokyo) or England (London) how many channels
could I get?
I'd be surprised if it's a lot more, in fact I bet you have less
programming coming out in HD.





Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<h37m80l05aiq544iulenhlf6b5u2isl6ld@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>
> >So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
>
> One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to the
> whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 6:29:53 PM

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

INHD shows some of the japanese HDTV programs that were done back in the 90's
btw[mainly nature shows]
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 12:53:29 AM

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

JDeats wrote:
> One thing I'm curious about is how many stations are available on a
> non-subscription basis? Also, how many are available on subscription
> basis (in Japan).
>
> Currently in the US in New York, Chicago or LA you can pull: CBS, NBC,
> ABC, PBS, FOX, UPN and WB (that's all the major non-subscription
> networks) all over the air (free) in HD that's seven networks
> broadcasting most of their prime time in HD. Through subscription I
> can get: HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Spice, Bravo, ESPN, Discovery, HDNet,
> HDNet Movies, INHD, INHD2. So that's an optional 11 subscription bases
> HD channels combined with the seven networks... almost twenty channels
> of HD content if I wanted.
>
> If I moved to Japan (Tokyo) or England (London)

Unless you count Euro1080 (http://www.euro1080.tv/), none.

how many channels
> could I get?
> I'd be surprised if it's a lot more, in fact I bet you have less
> programming coming out in HD.
>
>
>
>
>
> Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
> news:<h37m80l05aiq544iulenhlf6b5u2isl6ld@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>>
>>> So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
>>
>> One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to the
>> whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 12:54:37 AM

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

If that's true then the US is hardly lagging in HDTV revolution (as
many post would lead one to believe), regardless of what Japan had in
1990 or how many sets are in homes if there is no HD programming for
those sets then their nations adoption of HD isn't such a success now
is it?

Perhaps the FCC's regulations (that so many people complain about)
aren't such a bad thing after all.

-Jeremy


"Christopher Quigley" <news@quigleyfam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c6h505$rt7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> JDeats wrote:
> > One thing I'm curious about is how many stations are available on a
> > non-subscription basis? Also, how many are available on subscription
> > basis (in Japan).
> >
> > Currently in the US in New York, Chicago or LA you can pull: CBS, NBC,
> > ABC, PBS, FOX, UPN and WB (that's all the major non-subscription
> > networks) all over the air (free) in HD that's seven networks
> > broadcasting most of their prime time in HD. Through subscription I
> > can get: HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Spice, Bravo, ESPN, Discovery, HDNet,
> > HDNet Movies, INHD, INHD2. So that's an optional 11 subscription bases
> > HD channels combined with the seven networks... almost twenty channels
> > of HD content if I wanted.
> >
> > If I moved to Japan (Tokyo) or England (London)
>
> Unless you count Euro1080 (http://www.euro1080.tv/), none.
>
> how many channels
> > could I get?
> > I'd be surprised if it's a lot more, in fact I bet you have less
> > programming coming out in HD.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
> > news:<h37m80l05aiq544iulenhlf6b5u2isl6ld@4ax.com>...
> >> On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
> >>
> >>> So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
> >>
> >> One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to the
> >> whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 1:44:56 AM

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

> "Christopher Quigley" <news@quigleyfam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:<c6h505$rt7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> JDeats wrote:
>>> One thing I'm curious about is how many stations are available on a
>>> non-subscription basis? Also, how many are available on subscription
>>> basis (in Japan).
>>>
>>> Currently in the US in New York, Chicago or LA you can pull: CBS,
>>> NBC, ABC, PBS, FOX, UPN and WB (that's all the major
>>> non-subscription networks) all over the air (free) in HD that's
>>> seven networks broadcasting most of their prime time in HD. Through
>>> subscription I can get: HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Spice, Bravo, ESPN,
>>> Discovery, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, INHD2. So that's an optional
>>> 11 subscription bases HD channels combined with the seven
>>> networks... almost twenty channels of HD content if I wanted.
>>>
>>> If I moved to Japan (Tokyo) or England (London)
>>
>> Unless you count Euro1080 (http://www.euro1080.tv/), none.
>>
>> how many channels
>>> could I get?
>>> I'd be surprised if it's a lot more, in fact I bet you have less
>>> programming coming out in HD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
>>> news:<h37m80l05aiq544iulenhlf6b5u2isl6ld@4ax.com>...
>>>> On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
>>>>
>>>> One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to
>>>> the whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!
JDeats wrote:
> If that's true then the US is hardly lagging in HDTV revolution (as
> many post would lead one to believe), regardless of what Japan had in
> 1990 or how many sets are in homes if there is no HD programming for
> those sets then their nations adoption of HD isn't such a success now
> is it?
>
> Perhaps the FCC's regulations (that so many people complain about)
> aren't such a bad thing after all.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>

When I said 'none' I was talking about England. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 7:54:48 AM

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

A serious lack of HDTV material in the US. A dozen or less HDTV channels
on the average in the market? And they do not always have HDTV content.
Out of some 100 channels. And so we get to watch foreign documentries on
INHD or an old movie rerun. Why would the average US consumer that wants
lots of entertainment buy HDTV equipment? Because some day there might be
some more content that you might want to watch? I don't think so.

I've watched this new group for over two years. HDTV content growth in
the US is a joke. The technology is alive and well. Lack of content will
make our technology have little value.

We hear about the FCC saying all digital boardcast by 2009. So what?
About the same quality if it's not HDTV. Now if they say digital and an
HDTV signal now that would be something.

Let me check and see what is on ESPN-HDTV. Oh look, it's their distored
picture. But don't worry they say, some day we might have more content
when we open our new boardcast center, that we must be building one brick
at a time because they have said that for over a year.

jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in news:b0738dc6.0404241408.301b82b9
@posting.google.com:

> I keep seeing a lot of post regarding the poor state of HDTV in the
> US. So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
> What's the cost difference in comparable sets (list any popular models
> by Sony, Mitsubishi or Hitachi) list cost in Yen and Euro (if you
> know).
>
> Regarding over-the-air HD, how many channels are available in the most
> popular markets, specifically London and Tokyo. How many channels are
> available though subscription options and what is the cost of
> satellite or cable in these countries compared to ours.
>
> -Jeremy
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 7:07:30 PM

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

In article <b0738dc6.0404251954.54c23e95@posting.google.com>,
jeremy@pdq.net says...
> If that's true then the US is hardly lagging in HDTV revolution (as
> many post would lead one to believe), regardless of what Japan had in
> 1990 or how many sets are in homes if there is no HD programming for
> those sets then their nations adoption of HD isn't such a success now
> is it?
>
> Perhaps the FCC's regulations (that so many people complain about)
> aren't such a bad thing after all.

American HDTV is succeeding in a spectacular fassion. The success of
HDTV however, is a separate issue from the transition to over-the-air
digital broadcasting. OTA digital is not doing so well. Very few people
have bought digital recievers. The jury on OTA digital is still out. And
a lot of people think the FCC has bungled the over-the-air digital
transition badly.

But the HDTV revolution in the U.S. is underway, and is becoming a
rousing success. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. It's difficult to get
many models because of the demand. Factories all over the far east are
cranking out HDTVs as fast as they can make them. The cable and
satellite services are coming out with new HD channels every day. You no
longer have to worry about American HDTV dying out. HDTV is the future
and we're not going back.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 7:11:12 PM

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

That's a nice criticism of the current state of US HDTV, but it
doesn't answer the question of "compared to what?". Aparently London
has no HD channels available (subscription or otherwise), no one will
tell me what channels I could pickup and what types of programming
would be available if I lived in Tokyo...

It's easy to critiize the state of HDTV in the US, but where canyou
get more programming (in whats parts of the world and how many
channels, etc...)

If you can't answer that you sound like am American hater, that just
wants to bitch about that state of things without any knowledge of
what your talking about.

-Jeremy



Bulk Daddy <bdaddy@commonsense.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D8E91785C5Abdaddycsense@68.12.19.6>...
> A serious lack of HDTV material in the US. A dozen or less HDTV channels
> on the average in the market? And they do not always have HDTV content.
> Out of some 100 channels. And so we get to watch foreign documentries on
> INHD or an old movie rerun. Why would the average US consumer that wants
> lots of entertainment buy HDTV equipment? Because some day there might be
> some more content that you might want to watch? I don't think so.
>
> I've watched this new group for over two years. HDTV content growth in
> the US is a joke. The technology is alive and well. Lack of content will
> make our technology have little value.
>
> We hear about the FCC saying all digital boardcast by 2009. So what?
> About the same quality if it's not HDTV. Now if they say digital and an
> HDTV signal now that would be something.
>
> Let me check and see what is on ESPN-HDTV. Oh look, it's their distored
> picture. But don't worry they say, some day we might have more content
> when we open our new boardcast center, that we must be building one brick
> at a time because they have said that for over a year.
>
> jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in news:b0738dc6.0404241408.301b82b9
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > I keep seeing a lot of post regarding the poor state of HDTV in the
> > US. So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
> > What's the cost difference in comparable sets (list any popular models
> > by Sony, Mitsubishi or Hitachi) list cost in Yen and Euro (if you
> > know).
> >
> > Regarding over-the-air HD, how many channels are available in the most
> > popular markets, specifically London and Tokyo. How many channels are
> > available though subscription options and what is the cost of
> > satellite or cable in these countries compared to ours.
> >
> > -Jeremy
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 12:30:32 PM

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:07:30 -0600, Steve Rimberg <rsteve@world1.net>
wrote:

>In article <b0738dc6.0404251954.54c23e95@posting.google.com>,
>jeremy@pdq.net says...
>> If that's true then the US is hardly lagging in HDTV revolution (as
>> many post would lead one to believe), regardless of what Japan had in
>> 1990 or how many sets are in homes if there is no HD programming for
>> those sets then their nations adoption of HD isn't such a success now
>> is it?
>>
>> Perhaps the FCC's regulations (that so many people complain about)
>> aren't such a bad thing after all.
>
>American HDTV is succeeding in a spectacular fassion. The success of
>HDTV however, is a separate issue from the transition to over-the-air
>digital broadcasting. OTA digital is not doing so well. Very few people
>have bought digital recievers. The jury on OTA digital is still out. And

Virtually all HDTV .. SAT receivers also use an 8VSB receiver to
pickup local (H)DTV broadcasts. Virtually ALL Cable co's receive and
re-encode 8VSB OTA signals in order to distribute local HDTV service.

The availability of low def local retransmissions by Cable and Sat
co's subdues the demand for lowdef DTV receivers.

>a lot of people think the FCC has bungled the over-the-air digital
^^^^^^^^^
>transition badly.

I don't think so.. Who are you counting as a lot? A small minority?
The (H)DTV transition is doing quite nicely.
~1000 (H)DTV stations on the air.
and far ahead of any other country on this planet.

>But the HDTV revolution in the U.S. is underway, and is becoming a
>rousing success. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. It's difficult to get
>many models because of the demand. Factories all over the far east are
>cranking out HDTVs as fast as they can make them. The cable and
>satellite services are coming out with new HD channels every day. You no
>longer have to worry about American HDTV dying out. HDTV is the future
>and we're not going back.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 2:37:48 PM

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

Steve Rimberg <rsteve@world1.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1af9caf84aeb4840989701@news.gwtc.net>...
> In article <b0738dc6.0404251954.54c23e95@posting.google.com>,
> jeremy@pdq.net says...
> > If that's true then the US is hardly lagging in HDTV revolution (as
> > many post would lead one to believe), regardless of what Japan had in
> > 1990 or how many sets are in homes if there is no HD programming for
> > those sets then their nations adoption of HD isn't such a success now
> > is it?
> >
> > Perhaps the FCC's regulations (that so many people complain about)
> > aren't such a bad thing after all.
>
> American HDTV is succeeding in a spectacular fassion. The success of
> HDTV however, is a separate issue from the transition to over-the-air
> digital broadcasting. OTA digital is not doing so well. Very few people
> have bought digital recievers.

There is a simple answer to why this is. If think about it probably
over 90% of the people who would shell out money (almost always over
$1000) for an HDTV also subscribe to cable or satellite service and
they perfer to upgrade to HD using that route.

Many people don't even know external OTA tuners exist, those of us who
do won't pay the $400+ that the manufactuers are asking. Some don't
even realize they need something extra to get HD (unfortunatly US
consumers aren't the most educated and many salesmen don't explain
anything about what's needed to pickup HD on an HD-Ready set).



>The jury on OTA digital is still out. And
> a lot of people think the FCC has bungled the over-the-air digital
> transition badly.
>
> But the HDTV revolution in the U.S. is underway, and is becoming a
> rousing success. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. It's difficult to get
> many models because of the demand. Factories all over the far east are
> cranking out HDTVs as fast as they can make them. The cable and
> satellite services are coming out with new HD channels every day. You no
> longer have to worry about American HDTV dying out. HDTV is the future
> and we're not going back.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 6:18:37 PM

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

Tim Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:07:30 -0600, Steve Rimberg <rsteve@world1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <b0738dc6.0404251954.54c23e95@posting.google.com>,
>>jeremy@pdq.net says...
>>
>>>If that's true then the US is hardly lagging in HDTV revolution (as
>>>many post would lead one to believe), regardless of what Japan had in
>>>1990 or how many sets are in homes if there is no HD programming for
>>>those sets then their nations adoption of HD isn't such a success now
>>>is it?
>>>
>>>Perhaps the FCC's regulations (that so many people complain about)
>>>aren't such a bad thing after all.
>>
>>American HDTV is succeeding in a spectacular fassion. The success of
>>HDTV however, is a separate issue from the transition to over-the-air
>>digital broadcasting. OTA digital is not doing so well. Very few people
>>have bought digital recievers. The jury on OTA digital is still out. And
>
>
> Virtually all HDTV .. SAT receivers also use an 8VSB receiver to
> pickup local (H)DTV broadcasts. Virtually ALL Cable co's receive and
> re-encode 8VSB OTA signals in order to distribute local HDTV service.
>
> The availability of low def local retransmissions by Cable and Sat
> co's subdues the demand for lowdef DTV receivers.
>
>
>>a lot of people think the FCC has bungled the over-the-air digital
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>>transition badly.
>
>
> I don't think so.. Who are you counting as a lot? A small minority?
> The (H)DTV transition is doing quite nicely.
> ~1000 (H)DTV stations on the air.
> and far ahead of any other country on this planet.

I don't know why this constant conversion of what someone says keeps
occurring on this newsgroup. Steve Rimberg says that the OTA DTV
transition is going badly and you come back with "The (H)DTV transition
is doing quite nicely".

The reality is that HDTV is doing well in spite of the fact that it has
had no help from the OTA DTV transition that is doing dismal. And it was
the OTA DTV transition that was supposed to kick-start the sales of HDTV.

And it is not and never will be the number of OTA digital TV stations
that are on the air. When they are all on the air at full power it will
still not make a difference. When they are all on the air and at full
power and every TV set in the US has an OTA tuner in it by MANDATE it
still will not matter if 30% of viewers will not be able to receive the
signal due to interference and if another 65% who could get the signal
if they installed a rooftop antenna with a rotor refuse to do so.

It is the number of viewers who have converted to digital OTA reception
and who use it that is the measure of the OTA digital transitions success.

The FCC has bungled the OTA DTV transition and they know it. That is why
they had to MANDATE receivers. That is why at this moment the GAO
(General Accounting Office) is in Berlin trying to discover why Berlin
was able to do a digital transition in only NINE months.

They started broadcasting digital on November 1st 2002 and turned off
all analog broadcasting on August 1st 2003.

In the US we started broadcasting digital in 1998 and at the moment the
FCC is suggesting that MAYBE we can turn off analog in 2009 while
broadcasters are suggesting 2012 or 2020 as more convenient. Compare 11,
14 or 20 years to NINE months.

Most people who think about such things KNOW that the FCC has bungled
the OTA DTV transition. They are now thinking about how to fix it. And
if they totally fixed it tomorrow morning the last six years will still
stand as a total screwup.
>
>
>>But the HDTV revolution in the U.S. is underway, and is becoming a
>>rousing success. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. It's difficult to get
>>many models because of the demand. Factories all over the far east are
>>cranking out HDTVs as fast as they can make them. The cable and
>>satellite services are coming out with new HD channels every day. You no
>>longer have to worry about American HDTV dying out. HDTV is the future
>>and we're not going back.
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 10:26:26 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in
news:b0738dc6.0404281411.3ffb2589@posting.google.com:

> That's a nice criticism of the current state of US HDTV, but it
> doesn't answer the question of "compared to what?".
Compared to where content producers could be by now. Most content other
than the major broadcast networks are still creating material in non-HDTV
format.

> Aparently London
> has no HD channels available (subscription or otherwise),
They have one that I know of. Euro1080 started a few months ago.
Yes, the United States is ahead of many other companies.
My complaint is the lack to product.

> no one will
> tell me what channels I could pickup and what types of programming
> would be available if I lived in Tokyo...
>
> It's easy to critiize the state of HDTV in the US, but where canyou
> get more programming (in whats parts of the world and how many
> channels, etc...)
I should rephrase. The state of advancement in HDTV services has been
really slow.
>
> If you can't answer that you sound like am American hater, that just
> wants to bitch about that state of things without any knowledge of
> what your talking about.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> Bulk Daddy <bdaddy@commonsense.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns94D8E91785C5Abdaddycsense@68.12.19.6>...
>> A serious lack of HDTV material in the US. A dozen or less HDTV
>> channels on the average in the market? And they do not always have
>> HDTV content. Out of some 100 channels. And so we get to watch
>> foreign documentries on INHD or an old movie rerun. Why would the
>> average US consumer that wants lots of entertainment buy HDTV
>> equipment? Because some day there might be some more content that you
>> might want to watch? I don't think so.
>>
>> I've watched this new group for over two years. HDTV content growth
>> in the US is a joke. The technology is alive and well. Lack of
>> content will make our technology have little value.
>>
>> We hear about the FCC saying all digital boardcast by 2009. So what?
>> About the same quality if it's not HDTV. Now if they say digital and
>> an HDTV signal now that would be something.
>>
>> Let me check and see what is on ESPN-HDTV. Oh look, it's their
>> distored picture. But don't worry they say, some day we might have
>> more content when we open our new boardcast center, that we must be
>> building one brick at a time because they have said that for over a
>> year.
>>
>> jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in news:b0738dc6.0404241408.301b82b9
>> @posting.google.com:
>>
>> > I keep seeing a lot of post regarding the poor state of HDTV in the
>> > US. So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with
>> > HDTV. What's the cost difference in comparable sets (list any
>> > popular models by Sony, Mitsubishi or Hitachi) list cost in Yen and
>> > Euro (if you know).
>> >
>> > Regarding over-the-air HD, how many channels are available in the
>> > most popular markets, specifically London and Tokyo. How many
>> > channels are available though subscription options and what is the
>> > cost of satellite or cable in these countries compared to ours.
>> >
>> > -Jeremy
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 3:18:34 PM

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

It is important to know if this 14 years old system is still in use
and if it will be taken down soon. Its age is irrelevant if they stop
making it.

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<h37m80l05aiq544iulenhlf6b5u2isl6ld@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>
> >So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
>
> One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to the
> whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 3:56:49 PM

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

Bulk Daddy (bdaddy@commonsense.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in
> news:b0738dc6.0404281411.3ffb2589@posting.google.com:
>
> > That's a nice criticism of the current state of US HDTV, but it
> > doesn't answer the question of "compared to what?".
>
> Compared to where content producers could be by now. Most content other
> than the major broadcast networks are still creating material in non-HDTV
> format.

How do you know this?

A good example is all the channels run by Discovery Networks (Discovery,
The Learning Channel, Animal Planet, The Travel Channel, BBC America, etc.).
Almost *all* new, original shows for these channels are now filmed using HD
cameras, despite the fact that the shows are--of course--still shown in 4:3
SD on those stations.

It wouldn't be all that surprising to find out that other cable channels are
doing something similar with their original programming.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/CDChristmasLi...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 4:01:20 PM

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

It is a chicken and egg problem. The OTA receiver is not cheap
enough, and the price will not come down until the demand goes up.
FCC cannot just pull the plug on analog broadcasting until everyone
can afford the OTA receiver which requires the price to come down.
When you consider the entire US population, the OTA receivers are out
of reach for many low income families unless the price falls to single
digit or subsidized by the government. Remember that many people in
poverty gets their free TV sets dirty cheap from garage sales or free
hand-down from friends and families or even pick it out from some
dumpsters in the neigborhood. Free OTA receivers will not come free
for quite awhile. If FCC shuts off analog broadcasting without
subsidizing the OTA receivers for the low income class, it may cause a
riot. Just imagine what will happen in the inner city when all analog
TV stops receiving. You can get a glimpse of that during a power
outage. People have nothing to do at home and they will come out on
the street and start looting. If a temporary power outage can be so
serious, just imagine what a permanent TV outage will do to the
society.

The missing link is a free Digital to NTSC convertor supplied by the
government. If FCC would flip the bill, some manufacturers may be
able to produce such device at $1 a piece in volume. The Census
Beureau can send their workers to each household and distribute one
convertor per TV found in each house. They can shutdown analog
broadcasting in 3 months if they are serious about it.

The digital to NTSC convertor is needed to guarantee a successful
switch over. Of course, everyone in this newsgroup will not need one
because we have stopped watching NTSC for years already.

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<198kc.14057$eZ5.13186@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> The FCC has bungled the OTA DTV transition and they know it. That is why
> they had to MANDATE receivers. That is why at this moment the GAO
> (General Accounting Office) is in Berlin trying to discover why Berlin
> was able to do a digital transition in only NINE months.
>
> They started broadcasting digital on November 1st 2002 and turned off
> all analog broadcasting on August 1st 2003.
>
> In the US we started broadcasting digital in 1998 and at the moment the
> FCC is suggesting that MAYBE we can turn off analog in 2009 while
> broadcasters are suggesting 2012 or 2020 as more convenient. Compare 11,
> 14 or 20 years to NINE months.
>
> Most people who think about such things KNOW that the FCC has bungled
> the OTA DTV transition. They are now thinking about how to fix it. And
> if they totally fixed it tomorrow morning the last six years will still
> stand as a total screwup.
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 4:43:56 PM

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

"Bulk Daddy" <bdaddy@commonsense.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E2EA8EBECBbdaddycsense@68.12.19.6...
> jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in
> news:b0738dc6.0404281411.3ffb2589@posting.google.com:
>
> > That's a nice criticism of the current state of US HDTV, but it
> > doesn't answer the question of "compared to what?".
> Compared to where content producers could be by now. Most content other
> than the major broadcast networks are still creating material in non-HDTV
> format.

If you remember the transition to color, it was slow too. Probably not as
slow as HDTV, but then again, it was "Compatible Color", so it didn't make
BW obsolete.

I think the networks and TV stations feel the problem is the other way
around. They are being forced to switch their entire infrastructure over to
HDTV, with some unknown payback in the future. Meanwhile, they are shelling
out beaucoup bucks to add new hardware. We haven't reached critical mass
yet, when we do things will take off.


>
> > Aparently London
> > has no HD channels available (subscription or otherwise),
> They have one that I know of. Euro1080 started a few months ago.
> Yes, the United States is ahead of many other companies.
> My complaint is the lack to product.

It's tough being an early adopter.

Brad Houser
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 5:07:49 PM

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

On Sat, 8 May 2004, Karyudo wrote:
> Why is that irrelevant? If it's superceded smoothly, then what's the
> problem? I don't know if analog Hi-Vision is gone or not, but I do
> know that digital Hi-Vision is up and running, without any loss of
> service.

Oh? Do you claim that all those people who bought analog HDTVs in 1990 at
great expense are able to watch digital HDTV without having to buy new
equipment?

Oh. You meant to say that the analog tuners in those HDTVs are now all
useless, and that everybody with an analog HDTV has to buy a STB with a
digital HDTV tuner.

Gee, where have we heard that before?

> To me, that means Japan has had HDTV since 1990;
> approximately 10 years ahead of us.

I checked with some friends of mine in Japan. It's been 14 years, and
most people still don't have HDTV yet. They're all waiting for the price
to come down and the dust to settle on the formats.

Gee, where have we heard that before?

In fact, it seems that the HDTV situation in the US and Japan is roughly
comparable. The main difference is that TV guides in Japan now
specifically list HDTV programming, whereas US TV guides generally don't.

One could argue that this means that the US is deploying HDTV
approximately 10 years faster than Japan. Europe is lagging far behind
with only one HDTV broadcaster.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 7:29:41 PM

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

>Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<h37m80l05aiq544iulenhlf6b5u2isl6ld@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Apr 2004 15:08:35 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>>
>> >So I'd like to know what's going on in Japan and the UK with HDTV.
>>
>> One data point: Japan started HDTV broadcasts (over satellite) to the
>> whole country in 1990. Yes, that's right: 14 years ago!

On 7 May 2004 11:18:34 -0700, caloonese@yahoo.com (Caloonese) wrote:

>It is important to know if this 14 years old system is still in use
>and if it will be taken down soon. Its age is irrelevant if they stop
>making it.

Why is that irrelevant? If it's superceded smoothly, then what's the
problem? I don't know if analog Hi-Vision is gone or not, but I do
know that digital Hi-Vision is up and running, without any loss of
service. To me, that means Japan has had HDTV since 1990;
approximately 10 years ahead of us.
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 7:35:53 PM

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

On Sat, 8 May 2004, Karyudo wrote:
> Japan had commercialised HDTV 10
> years before anyone else. Was it a rousing success? No.

In fact, Japan's analog HDTV was a miserable failure and a technological
dead end.

> But don't try
> to pretend that the US wisely and sagely held off in the consumer's
> best interests; they just got beat. Much like the race to the moon
> against the Soviets, Japan was faster than the US to introduce HDTV.

True but irrelevant.

Japan's HDTV deployment is still struggling, and the US has surpassed
Japan in making HDTV available to a much greater percent of the country.

At least in part, this was due by observing how the Japanese screwed up,
and not repeating those mistakes.

In part, it was also due to strictly domestic Japanese concerns; since
1990 the entire country has been in a deep recession that makes the
situation in the US look like a minor blip by comparison.

The Japanese face (for Japanese, anyway) the incredible humiliation of
having their butts kicked by Koreans, not just with cars and electronics,
but in a national deployment of HDTV.

By any standard, Europe has been a miserable failure. Europe was so
convinced that PAL was superior that they ignored the technological
advances of the 1980s that made NTSC surpass PAL. Europe blew its
opportunity to go HDTV with the digital transition, so they're likely to
be stuck with low-definition TV (and video advertisements on city buses)
for many years to come.

It's increasingly becoming clear that COFDM was the wrong horse to bet on.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 12:34:39 AM

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

On Sat, 8 May 2004, keith wrote:
> While you guys argue it out over vsb versus ofdm, I am busy watching OTA
> HDTV every night. Don't forget to let me know which one wins.

8VSB won years ago. COFDM is dead in North America.

The only person who doesn't accept that fact is a crackpot named Bob
Miller who is moaning that the victory of 8VSB ruined his business plans
to broadcast video advertising to city buses.

COFDM is proven unsuitable for reliable HDTV. TV stations need to be much
more powerful to broacast COFDM with the same coverage area as 8VSB, or
you have to have the entire countryside dotted with lots of little towers.

COFDM is also very susceptable to impulse noise. Contrary to Bob Miller's
claims, people in England are having to install rooftop antennas and
carefully aim them to avoid reception problems. Bob Miller fobs this off
as "England choose an older system."

Bob Miller doesn't care. He wants to take away your HDTV (and my HDTV) so
he can resume his business. This is an incredibly steep price for all of
us to pay so that one person can broadcast video advertising to city
buses.

This is why Bob Miller has to be held up as a symbol of mockery and
humilation as this newsgroup's own newsgroup-kook. If you want to keep
your HDTV, it is important to be sure that nobody takes Bob Miller
seriously.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 12:52:49 AM

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

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> In Japan their OTA HDTV is going gangbusters with over a million receivers
> sold since last December, 92% integrated HDTV sets. Their analog Hi-Vision
> had 1.8 million users in 2002 but over the last decade would not be
> considered a success. I don't know how they are doing with cable.

All those numbers indicate that HDTV has barely penetrated the Japanese
market. Something like 98% of Japanese consumers do not have HDTV.

Hardly a success.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
May 9, 2004 12:53:13 AM

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

While you guys argue it out over vsb versus ofdm, I am busy watching OTA
HDTV every night. Don't forget to let me know which one wins.

Keith.


--
keith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keith's Profile: 1486
View this thread: 12753
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 1:14:30 AM

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

On Sat, 8 May 2004 13:07:49 -0700, Mark Crispin
<mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>In fact, it seems that the HDTV situation in the US and Japan is roughly
>comparable. The main difference is that TV guides in Japan now
>specifically list HDTV programming, whereas US TV guides generally don't.
>
>One could argue that this means that the US is deploying HDTV
>approximately 10 years faster than Japan. Europe is lagging far behind
>with only one HDTV broadcaster.

You could argue that, but it's pretty disingenuous. By the same token,
Zimbabwe (as a made-up but almost plausible example) is deploying
electricity faster than the US -- they didn't have it two years ago,
now they've got lots, ergo they're faster. Sorta completely ignores
the fact that the US has had it since at least the early 20th century,
doesn't it? Same here, with HDTV. Japan had commercialised HDTV 10
years before anyone else. Was it a rousing success? No. But don't try
to pretend that the US wisely and sagely held off in the consumer's
best interests; they just got beat. Much like the race to the moon
against the Soviets, Japan was faster than the US to introduce HDTV.
Period.
May 9, 2004 1:29:35 AM

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

> > > Aparently London
> > > has no HD channels available (subscription or otherwise),
> > They have one that I know of. Euro1080 started a few months ago.
> > Yes, the United States is ahead of many other companies.
> > My complaint is the lack to product.

Well Europe gets a lot of TV programming from the US currently.

So when they do deploy HDTV, they can tap into a lot of HDTV content
which they would have bought anyways. They would just dub US shows into
French, German or whatever, like what they do already.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:03:13 AM

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

Karyudo wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 13:07:49 -0700, Mark Crispin
> <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>>In fact, it seems that the HDTV situation in the US and Japan is roughly
>>comparable. The main difference is that TV guides in Japan now
>>specifically list HDTV programming, whereas US TV guides generally don't.
>>
>>One could argue that this means that the US is deploying HDTV
>>approximately 10 years faster than Japan. Europe is lagging far behind
>>with only one HDTV broadcaster.
>
>
> You could argue that, but it's pretty disingenuous. By the same token,
> Zimbabwe (as a made-up but almost plausible example) is deploying
> electricity faster than the US -- they didn't have it two years ago,
> now they've got lots, ergo they're faster. Sorta completely ignores
> the fact that the US has had it since at least the early 20th century,
> doesn't it? Same here, with HDTV. Japan had commercialised HDTV 10
> years before anyone else. Was it a rousing success? No. But don't try
> to pretend that the US wisely and sagely held off in the consumer's
> best interests; they just got beat. Much like the race to the moon
> against the Soviets, Japan was faster than the US to introduce HDTV.
> Period.

Disingenuous to say the least. Since the FCC has since 1998 been
prodding the broadcasters to go on the air and most now have (ignoring
the low power pretend broadcasters for the moment) it can be argued that
we are way ahead of Japan or Europe for that matter.

In reality however it is not how many broadcasters are on the air it is
how many households have bought into HDTV. If Europe has only one
broadcaster and 90% of European households have bought an HDTV and less
than ONE% of US households have it doesn't matter if every broadcaster
is on the air with pure HDTV programming in the US, the US will be a
failure and Europe will be a success.

So the question is how fast are people adopting HDTV.

In Europe their satellite broadcasting of HDTV is very new and I have no
figures.

In Japan their OTA HDTV is going gangbusters with over a million
receivers sold since last December, 92% integrated HDTV sets. Their
analog Hi-Vision had 1.8 million users in 2002 but over the last decade
would not be considered a success. I don't know how they are doing with
cable.

In the US we are doing well with cable and satellite but nothing much is
happening OTA. My argument is that is could be if we had a modulation
that worked better.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:17:40 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, 8 May 2004, Karyudo wrote:
>
>> Japan had commercialised HDTV 10
>> years before anyone else. Was it a rousing success? No.
>
>
> In fact, Japan's analog HDTV was a miserable failure and a technological
> dead end.
>
>> But don't try
>> to pretend that the US wisely and sagely held off in the consumer's
>> best interests; they just got beat. Much like the race to the moon
>> against the Soviets, Japan was faster than the US to introduce HDTV.
>
>
> True but irrelevant.
>
> Japan's HDTV deployment is still struggling, and the US has surpassed
> Japan in making HDTV available to a much greater percent of the country.
>
> At least in part, this was due by observing how the Japanese screwed up,
> and not repeating those mistakes.
>
> In part, it was also due to strictly domestic Japanese concerns; since
> 1990 the entire country has been in a deep recession that makes the
> situation in the US look like a minor blip by comparison.
>
> The Japanese face (for Japanese, anyway) the incredible humiliation of
> having their butts kicked by Koreans, not just with cars and
> electronics, but in a national deployment of HDTV.

Japan may be humiliated by S. Korea with HDTV but only after the S.
Korean retest of COFDM and 8-VSB is over and they switch to DVB-T COFDM
broadcasting in S. Korea. S. Korean broadcasters have refused to deploy
8-VSB in many parts of the country until testing has been done. In the
meantime sales of HDTV sets in Japan continue to skyrocket.
>
> By any standard, Europe has been a miserable failure. Europe was so
> convinced that PAL was superior that they ignored the technological
> advances of the 1980s that made NTSC surpass PAL. Europe blew its
> opportunity to go HDTV with the digital transition, so they're likely to
> be stuck with low-definition TV (and video advertisements on city buses)
> for many years to come.

Not only does Europe have HDTV via one satellite venture but another is
being contemplated. France is considering doing HDTV and the UK and
Berlin represent the greatest success stories in the world as to
transitioning to digital. Cable and satellite both can opt for HDTV when
they think the time is right. And COFDM DVB-T allows them to transition
to HDTV with a switch of receivers OTA also. No disaster that I can see.
Most production houses in Europe are doing HDTV.
>
> It's increasingly becoming clear that COFDM was the wrong horse to bet on.

COFDM is the right choice for the world and the world so choose and soon
will be the choice in the US also.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 5:27:08 AM

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

In article <keith.15yrty@news.satelliteguys.us>,
keith <keith.15yrty@news.satelliteguys.us> writes:
>
> While you guys argue it out over vsb versus ofdm, I am busy watching OTA
> HDTV every night. Don't forget to let me know which one wins.
>
Most of us don't technically care whether or not we use 8VSB or
COFDM. Most of us prefer HDTV, and will strongly resist changes
that will risk HDTV.

John
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 12:10:29 AM

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

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0405082034500.12381@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
> Only in your psychotic fantasies. 10 years from now, after all of Korea
> is using 8-VSB, you will still claim that Korea will switch to COFDM.
>
> You are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. You should see a
> mental health professional.

To be fair, I must point out that the above is entirely inappropriate. If
you believe that the poster is psychotic, then you must also believe that
various respectable publications are equally psychotic. A Google search
indicates that various sources, in both English and Korean, have posted the
same basic elements of this article, dated April 16, 2004:

http://www.monitor4u.com/english/news/cont.asp?idx=792&...

"In response, the Korean broadcasting industry and electronics manufacturers
have begun talking about switching from ATSC to the digital video
broadcasting-terrestrial (DVB-T) standard adopted in Europe. DVB-T uses OFDM
modulation, which is much better suited to mobile reception than ATSC, and
already offers a functional expansion for mobile devices called digital
video broadcasting-handheld (DVB-H). Korean electronics manufacturers have
suggested that if the world is moving toward DVB-T, the best way to acquire
globally-competitive technologies will be to adopt the standard in the
domestic market as well.

While the Korean government wants to nurture domestic electronics
manufacturers, ATSC-compliant TV receivers are already on the market there,
and changing standards in mid-stream will not be that simple. This has led
to the proposal of a standard combining ATSC and DVB-T. The final decision
is expected to be made by the end of 2004."
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 12:49:36 AM

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

A lot of manufacturers are now joining with the broadcasters on the
DVB-T side in S. Korea. LG is being marginalized. This was already
happening last fall. The same scenario occurred in Taiwan. First
broadcasters then other manufacturers joined and then they pressured the
government to switch from 8-VSB to COFDM. It is only common sense. These
manufacturers depend on one main reality, quantity production. The US
was supposed to generate quantity. It hasn't and it won't. The US has
marginalized itself by going it alone. The world standard is COFDM.

When S. Korea switches or allows COFDM DVB-T it will have a major
impact here in the US. Congress is already investigating Berlin and the
UK. Understand that when S. Korea allows COFDM it will only be a face
saving gesture. In reality it will be the end of 8-VSB in S. Korea.

The US will then stand alone with 8-VSB. Canada is doing nothing. Mexico
is a non market and by the time they make a decision on modulation I
think it will be a different world. Even if Mexico makes a decision for
8-VSB it will be in a position to switch for many years.

The simple question will then finally be asked, why are we doing this
really stupid thing? What are the incredible benefits of 8-VSB that
justify the sacrifice of all the benefits of COFDM? And then we will
switch also.

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0405082034500.12381@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
>
>>Only in your psychotic fantasies. 10 years from now, after all of Korea
>>is using 8-VSB, you will still claim that Korea will switch to COFDM.
>>
>>You are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. You should see a
>>mental health professional.
>
>
> To be fair, I must point out that the above is entirely inappropriate. If
> you believe that the poster is psychotic, then you must also believe that
> various respectable publications are equally psychotic. A Google search
> indicates that various sources, in both English and Korean, have posted the
> same basic elements of this article, dated April 16, 2004:
>
> http://www.monitor4u.com/english/news/cont.asp?idx=792&...
>
> "In response, the Korean broadcasting industry and electronics manufacturers
> have begun talking about switching from ATSC to the digital video
> broadcasting-terrestrial (DVB-T) standard adopted in Europe. DVB-T uses OFDM
> modulation, which is much better suited to mobile reception than ATSC, and
> already offers a functional expansion for mobile devices called digital
> video broadcasting-handheld (DVB-H). Korean electronics manufacturers have
> suggested that if the world is moving toward DVB-T, the best way to acquire
> globally-competitive technologies will be to adopt the standard in the
> domestic market as well.
>
> While the Korean government wants to nurture domestic electronics
> manufacturers, ATSC-compliant TV receivers are already on the market there,
> and changing standards in mid-stream will not be that simple. This has led
> to the proposal of a standard combining ATSC and DVB-T. The final decision
> is expected to be made by the end of 2004."
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 1:08:00 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AVRnc.15473$Hs1.7413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The simple question will then finally be asked, why are we doing this
> really stupid thing? What are the incredible benefits of 8-VSB that
> justify the sacrifice of all the benefits of COFDM? And then we will
> switch also.

As the cited Korean article indicates, the killer app for OTA TV (any kind)
may be cell phones. At home, most Americans already get their TV from cable
or satellite. But while riding or walking, TV must be OTA in some way.
Sending video to each cell phone individually from current cell site, via
some form of wideband CDMA, is extremely wasteful and expensive. So, the
rest of the world seems to want to move to broadcast TV reception on cell
phones.

The obvious problem is that, judging just from my own experience and my
friend's, OTA reception of ATSC is even more iffy than of NTSC, which itself
was never reliable enough for convenient portable use. (Many of us have one
of those tiny 2" LCD TVs that turned out to be virtually useless because,
even with its 2' antenna extended, it could only receive a couple of
channels, and only with great difficulty.) So, one might argue that, one
way or another, if OTA TV is ever going to flourish, it must be made
accessible to cell phones in some practical and economical fashion.

In other words, wireless engineers may, in the end, be the ones to determine
our final broadcast TV standard!
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 1:09:22 AM

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

In article <VkRnc.5769$eH1.2958453@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> writes:
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0405082034500.12381@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
>> Only in your psychotic fantasies. 10 years from now, after all of Korea
>> is using 8-VSB, you will still claim that Korea will switch to COFDM.
>>
>> You are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. You should see a
>> mental health professional.
>
> To be fair, I must point out that the above is entirely inappropriate. If
> you believe that the poster is psychotic, then you must also believe that
> various respectable publications are equally psychotic.
>
Bob's behavior might be psychotic because of his intensity and need
to keep on repeating both honest and insane claims. More likely, it
would seem to be a paranoid psychosis.

When Bob makes a claim, there is NO WAY that it can educate -- because
his claims are both true and false (depending.) His need to repeat
his nonsense over and over again, without participating in or understanding
reality is unfortunate for him (and the rest of us.)

John
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 6:24:53 AM

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

OTA spectrum should be used for or at least work mobile. In fact it must
work mobile for OTA broadcasting to survive IMO.

There are so many ways for you to receive TV in a fixed location. Cable,
Satellite, wireless megaband (10 to 100 Mbps) and over VDSL copper. How
can broadcast DTV compete with all that? Well not so well so far. OTA
broadcasting has lost 90% (the last figure I heard) of its customers to
cable and satellite. Even if 8-VSB worked as well as COFDM to fixed
locations I wonder why we would use this precious bandwidth for fixed
reception. There are just too many other ways to deliver to fixed locations.

The TV spectrum is the best for mobile/portable reception. If used that
way it can also then compete for fixed reception. I don't think that
cell phones however is the market. A device that is a computer, TV, cell
phone and camera with a somewhat larger screen would be more like it.
Cell phones screens are just too small to watch for long. But yes cell
phones will most likely all have DTV reception soon.

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AVRnc.15473$Hs1.7413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>The simple question will then finally be asked, why are we doing this
>>really stupid thing? What are the incredible benefits of 8-VSB that
>>justify the sacrifice of all the benefits of COFDM? And then we will
>>switch also.
>
>
> As the cited Korean article indicates, the killer app for OTA TV (any kind)
> may be cell phones. At home, most Americans already get their TV from cable
> or satellite. But while riding or walking, TV must be OTA in some way.
> Sending video to each cell phone individually from current cell site, via
> some form of wideband CDMA, is extremely wasteful and expensive. So, the
> rest of the world seems to want to move to broadcast TV reception on cell
> phones.
>
> The obvious problem is that, judging just from my own experience and my
> friend's, OTA reception of ATSC is even more iffy than of NTSC, which itself
> was never reliable enough for convenient portable use. (Many of us have one
> of those tiny 2" LCD TVs that turned out to be virtually useless because,
> even with its 2' antenna extended, it could only receive a couple of
> channels, and only with great difficulty.) So, one might argue that, one
> way or another, if OTA TV is ever going to flourish, it must be made
> accessible to cell phones in some practical and economical fashion.
>
> In other words, wireless engineers may, in the end, be the ones to determine
> our final broadcast TV standard!
>
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 10:41:18 PM

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

I will agree with this part, but there's still no viable market for mobile
TV reception, in my opinion.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VPWnc.15903$Hs1.9898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> There are so many ways for you to receive TV in a fixed location. Cable,
> Satellite, wireless megaband (10 to 100 Mbps) and over VDSL copper. How
> can broadcast DTV compete with all that?
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 6:38:43 AM

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

John Golitsis wrote:
> I will agree with this part, but there's still no viable market for mobile
> TV reception, in my opinion.
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VPWnc.15903$Hs1.9898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>There are so many ways for you to receive TV in a fixed location. Cable,
>>Satellite, wireless megaband (10 to 100 Mbps) and over VDSL copper. How
>>can broadcast DTV compete with all that?
>
>
>
No market? Dan Rather had a piece on mobile TV last week. They visited
after market car shops and asked the question, "How many people who come
in for customizing their vehicle want TV installed?" The answer was
everyone.

A car company we are talking to says that 40% of SUV's, minivans and
such vehicles that they sell go out with rear seat DVD players and their
customer surveys say that would jump to 70% if broadcast TV was
available. That's a market to me.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 6:40:51 AM

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

John Golitsis wrote:

> I will agree with this part, but there's still no viable market for mobile
> TV reception, in my opinion.
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VPWnc.15903$Hs1.9898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>There are so many ways for you to receive TV in a fixed location. Cable,
>>Satellite, wireless megaband (10 to 100 Mbps) and over VDSL copper. How
>>can broadcast DTV compete with all that?
>
>
>
Mobile TV reception is not only in a car. It is easy portable, being
able to go out in the back yard or on the boat. There are a hundred
venues other than the back seat of a car.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 3:56:41 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> John Golitsis wrote:
>
>> I will agree with this part, but there's still no viable market for
>> mobile
>> TV reception, in my opinion.
>>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:VPWnc.15903$Hs1.9898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>> There are so many ways for you to receive TV in a fixed location. Cable,
>>> Satellite, wireless megaband (10 to 100 Mbps) and over VDSL copper. How
>>> can broadcast DTV compete with all that?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> No market? Dan Rather had a piece on mobile TV last week. They visited
> after market car shops and asked the question, "How many people who come
> in for customizing their vehicle want TV installed?" The answer was
> everyone.
>
> A car company we are talking to says that 40% of SUV's, minivans and
> such vehicles that they sell go out with rear seat DVD players and their
> customer surveys say that would jump to 70% if broadcast TV was
> available. That's a market to me.

How many are getting TVs to play DVDs?

Matthew (who expects no answer)

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 10:57:15 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VPWnc.15903$Hs1.9898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: OTA spectrum should be used for or at least work mobile. In fact it
must
: work mobile for OTA broadcasting to survive IMO.

==========================
Only an idiot would think such a thing.
==========================
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 8:18:37 PM

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

DISPLAYS yes, TVs - to receive TV broadcasts - NO.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:T6goc.16864$V97.16151@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> No market? Dan Rather had a piece on mobile TV last week. They visited
> after market car shops and asked the question, "How many people who come
> in for customizing their vehicle want TV installed?" The answer was
> everyone.
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 5:56:14 PM

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

"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40a37de9$0$56278$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VPWnc.15903$Hs1.9898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> : OTA spectrum should be used for or at least work mobile. In fact it
> must
> : work mobile for OTA broadcasting to survive IMO.
>
> ==========================
> Only an idiot would think such a thing.
> ==========================

Then you apparently believe that Korea, Ireland, etc., are entirely made up
of idiots:

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200404/techana_298749.ht...
In response, the Korean broadcasting industry and electronics manufacturers
have begun talking about switching from ATSC to the digital video
broadcasting-terrestrial (DVB-T) standard adopted in Europe. DVB-T uses OFDM
modulation, which is much better suited to mobile reception than ATSC, and
already offers a functional expansion for mobile devices called digital
video broadcasting-handheld (DVB-H).

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20040304S0036
The newest "goose that laid the golden egg" for equipment makers and
broadcasters, also, is the arrival of television in a long-life,
lightweight, handheld form - with users paying for the privilege. As noted
by Pauchon, "TV in your pocket should be the killer app."


The bottom line is that many people have good reason to worry about the
economic viability of digital OTA TV broadcasting--it simply doesn't seem to
be competing very well against cable and satellite. Some broadcasters have
already announced that they will never upgrade beyond 480i; other
broadcasters are actively looking to sell their spectrum to various
subscription services; and most consumers are not even interested in paying
for a digital TV tuner, much less install an "unsightly" antenna on their
home roofs.

In this highly upsetting situation (for those of us who rely on OTA HDTV),
it is not unreasonable to hope that mobile TV--on cell phones and car
seatbacks--will indeed be the "killer app" that restores economic viability
to the technology.
May 14, 2004 8:18:15 PM

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

In article <0a83fd204a947e4c418ab43690d67c1b@news.teranews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <mlmartin@me.com> wrote:

> > A car company we are talking to says that 40% of SUV's, minivans and
> > such vehicles that they sell go out with rear seat DVD players and their
> > customer surveys say that would jump to 70% if broadcast TV was
> > available. That's a market to me.
>
> How many are getting TVs to play DVDs?

Hmm, TVs in cars. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

As if people talking on cell phones while driving isn't bad enough.
Anonymous
May 15, 2004 3:03:37 PM

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004, poldy wrote:
> Hmm, TVs in cars. That's a disaster waiting to happen.
> As if people talking on cell phones while driving isn't bad enough.

That is Bob Miller's wet dream. He wants to make money broadcasting
advertising to vehicles. The choice of 8-VSB destroyed his dream.

We in the US have HDTV throughout the country because of 8-VSB. If we
need to pacify the kids with cartoons during a long road trip, we use a
cheap little battery-operated DVD player. In fact, they're cheap enough
that each kid can have his/her own DVD player so we don't have to listen
to them arguing about what to watch.

Japan only has HDTV in three cities, and Europe has no HDTV, because of
COFDM. But they will get video advertising in their vehicles.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 9:30:33 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

>
> Japan only has HDTV in three cities, and Europe has no HDTV, because of
> COFDM. But they will get video advertising in their vehicles.
>
> -- Mark --

Japan has HDTV in only three cities because they have just started
broadcasting DTV terrestrially last December. The amazing thing is that
they have sold over a million HDTV receivers in just those few months.
(2% of which are integrated sets). Japan will quickly have many more
transmitters and I can only imagine how many receivers will be sold then.

The fact that Europe CHOSE not to support HDTV has nothing to do with
the modulation COFDM. As can be seen by the use of COFDM to deliver HDTV
in 7 MHz channels in Australia and 6 MHz channels in Japan, Europe could
easily deliver HDTV in their 8 MHz wide channels. No Europe simply chose
not to support HDTV in their terrestrial broadcasting.

Europe does have HDTV via satellite however with one system in operation
and another starting and most European shops are producing HDTV content.
COFDM allows for HDTV so Europe can switch to HDTV when and if they
decide to. France may decide to go with HDTV since they have not started
their DTV broadcasting yet.

Most free OTA broadcasting requires advertising to support it so it is
not out of line for portable and mobile reception to be so supported.
What is surprising is how much advertising is tolerated by cable and
satellite customers of content that would be free if viewed OTA.

People are actually willing to pay twice for HDTV content in the US
because the OTA reception is so poor. They pay once via the advertising
and once in cash. Amazing.
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 2:15:16 PM

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

On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Japan has HDTV in only three cities because they have just started
> broadcasting DTV terrestrially last December. The amazing thing is that they
> have sold over a million HDTV receivers in just those few months.

That means that 97%+ of Japanese households still use analog standard
definition TV.

Hardly a massive takeover of the Japanese market.

The Japanese also bought a lot of Mini-Disc systems. That hardly
indicates that Mini-Disc is anything other than the miserable failure that
it was.

Nobody I know in Japan within the service area of HDTV has bought HDTV
yet. They're all waiting for the price of equipment to come down, for
service to become more reliable, and for more programming options. Sound
familiar?

> The fact that Europe CHOSE not to support HDTV has nothing to do with the
> modulation COFDM.

Europe is pissing and moaning that they are far behind the US in HDTV.
They can't do anything about it because all their resources are spent
coping with the COFDM disaster. Europe choose the cheap approach, and now
are paying the price of inferior TV with limited range and massive power
requirements.

In England, COFDM TV users continually complain about impulse noise
inferference problems. Germany has only been able to convert one city,
with only handful of channels. Most of Europe remains stuck on
analog-only, including France (Bob Miller's repeated example of a DTV
"success" even though they aren't doing any HDTV at all).

Meanwhile, in the USA, even minor cities have a dozen or more 8-VSB TV
channels broadcasting in HDTV. Over a thousand stations nationwide are
broadcasting in 8-VSB. All because North America make the wise decision
to adopt 8-VSB instead of listening to the siren song of COFDM.

Bob Miller's psychotic mind closes itself to reports pouring in from
around the country of successful 8-VSB reception of HDTV programming. He
is completely consumed with hatred against HDTV, and can do nothing to
vent his rage but post trolling messages on an HDTV newsgroup.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 6:38:13 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> Japan only has HDTV in three cities, and Europe has no HDTV, because
>> of COFDM. But they will get video advertising in their vehicles.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>
>
> Japan has HDTV in only three cities because they have just started
> broadcasting DTV terrestrially last December. The amazing thing is that
> they have sold over a million HDTV receivers in just those few months.
> (2% of which are integrated sets).

OOPs! that is 92% not 2%.

Japan will quickly have many more
> transmitters and I can only imagine how many receivers will be sold then.
>
> The fact that Europe CHOSE not to support HDTV has nothing to do with
> the modulation COFDM. As can be seen by the use of COFDM to deliver HDTV
> in 7 MHz channels in Australia and 6 MHz channels in Japan, Europe could
> easily deliver HDTV in their 8 MHz wide channels. No Europe simply chose
> not to support HDTV in their terrestrial broadcasting.
>
> Europe does have HDTV via satellite however with one system in operation
> and another starting and most European shops are producing HDTV content.
> COFDM allows for HDTV so Europe can switch to HDTV when and if they
> decide to. France may decide to go with HDTV since they have not started
> their DTV broadcasting yet.
>
> Most free OTA broadcasting requires advertising to support it so it is
> not out of line for portable and mobile reception to be so supported.
> What is surprising is how much advertising is tolerated by cable and
> satellite customers of content that would be free if viewed OTA.
>
> People are actually willing to pay twice for HDTV content in the US
> because the OTA reception is so poor. They pay once via the advertising
> and once in cash. Amazing.
Anonymous
May 16, 2004 11:07:50 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Japan has HDTV in only three cities because they have just started
>> broadcasting DTV terrestrially last December. The amazing thing is
>> that they have sold over a million HDTV receivers in just those few
>> months.
>
>
> That means that 97%+ of Japanese households still use analog standard
> definition TV.

After only a few months and only 3 cities broadcasting HDTV that is
amazing. The US numbers are less than ONE % penetration of HDTV
receivers after SIX years. Compare again, 3% of all Japanese households
though they are concentrated in only three cities and after only SIX
MONTHS. The US less than ONE % after SIX YEARS even though HDTV is
available in MOST if not ALL cities.

Quite a difference. Any trend lines using these statistics would label
the US an abject failure compared to the astounding and obvious success
of the Japanese data.
>

>> The fact that Europe CHOSE not to support HDTV has nothing to do with
>> the modulation COFDM.
>
>
> Europe is pissing and moaning that they are far behind the US in HDTV.
> They can't do anything about it because all their resources are spent
> coping with the COFDM disaster. Europe choose the cheap approach, and
> now are paying the price of inferior TV with limited range and massive
> power requirements.

SD especially at the 625 line PAL is not that bad. HDTV is being
broadcast via satellite and produced in Europe. COFDM is an astounding
success in Europe. COFDM receivers are less expensive but not cheap. The
range of COFDM is virtually the same as 8-VSB at the same power levels
in the real world. In Europe they have chosen to use the added Features
of COFDM that allow low power transmitters and Single Frequency Networks
to build very reliable networks with ubiquitous even coverage that
allows for mobile reception.
>
> In England, COFDM TV users continually complain about impulse noise
> inferference problems.

There are going on 5 million receivers in England which would translate
to 30 million in the US. That smells of incredible success compared to
the US. The US has less than ONE% household penetration of OTA 8-VSB
receivers while England has over 13% household penetration with COFDM
receivers. The US has been at it for SIX years, England for only THREE
years.

A few of these receivers of an early vintage have impulse noise
problems. It is not something that has held back sales obviously, not
like the reception problems of 8-VSB have held back the sales of 8-VSB
receivers. Stifled them is more like it. So totally blasted sales that
the FCC has seen fit to MANDATE, (that means FORCE) the sales of 8-VSB
receivers even to those who do not want or need them. All the 5 million
receivers in England were FREELY purchased.

Germany has only been able to convert one city,
> with only handful of channels. Most of Europe remains stuck on
> analog-only, including France (Bob Miller's repeated example of a DTV
> "success" even though they aren't doing any HDTV at all).

Berlin has 30 free over the air DTV programming channels and over 12
Digital radio channels. I don't know of any US city which has 30
programs OTA. France has not begun DTV OTA transmission yet which I have
mentioned many times. They are considering HDTV with COFDM.
>
> Meanwhile, in the USA, even minor cities have a dozen or more 8-VSB TV
> channels broadcasting in HDTV. Over a thousand stations nationwide are
> broadcasting in 8-VSB. All because North America make the wise decision
> to adopt 8-VSB instead of listening to the siren song of COFDM.

N. America includes Mexico and they have not made a decision yet. Canada
has made a political decision but there is virtually no activity in
actually broadcasting HDTV OTA. They have one station or so on the air
at minuscule power. The US had over a thousand stations broadcasting but
most are only pretending at low power. The number of pretend stations
doesn't matter anyhow since it is the number of viewers that counts.
Customers for OTA receivers are RARE even when the customer actually
buys an HDTV set. 9 out of 10 DON'T buy an OTA 8-VSB receiver with it
even though most HDTV programming is OTA. A significant % of HDTV sets
are being used to watch 480i DVDs exclusively.
>
> Bob Miller's psychotic mind closes itself to reports pouring in from
> around the country of successful 8-VSB reception of HDTV programming.
> He is completely consumed with hatred against HDTV, and can do nothing
> to vent his rage but post trolling messages on an HDTV newsgroup.

I have no hatred of HDTV, I would like to see it easily received in my
neighborhood. I think that the need for rooftop antennas dooms OTA DTV
just as it has NTSC. If anyone wants to see HDTV succeed and OTA free
broadcast DTV remain viable you should demand that the US switch to a
modern modulation that works. Much less expensive receivers and no need
of a rooftop antenna would be added benefits of switching to COFDM.
Mobile/portable reception highlights the ease of reception that COFDM
offers and is an added feature that many will find very nice.

As to the INDIVIDUAL reports of 8-VSB working it should be expected.
After all even an 8-VSB biased organization like MSTV says that 8-VSB
works well 65% of the time. That would suggest that there would be over
65 million homes where 8-VSB would work just fine (allowing for the odd
dropout from dynamic multipath) with a rooftop antenna. That leaves 40
million homes where 8-VSB does NOT work well or not at all.

COFDM would allow for all homes to work WELL with easy reception and
inexpensive receivers that do not require rooftop antennas by design.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 12:31:39 AM

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

In article <a_Opc.2790$SZ4.2324@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Japan has HDTV in only three cities because they have just started
>>> broadcasting DTV terrestrially last December. The amazing thing is
>>> that they have sold over a million HDTV receivers in just those few
>>> months.
>>
>>
>> That means that 97%+ of Japanese households still use analog standard
>> definition TV.
>
> After only a few months and only 3 cities broadcasting HDTV that is
> amazing.
>
Remember, HDTV has been in the Japanese public psyche for over ten
years now (much longer than that, actually.) In the US, HDTV isn't
really much in the public psyche until the last few years at best.

>
> Quite a difference.
>
Yes, it is amazing that Japan hasn't had more HDTV penetration than
it has. While, HDTV hasn't really been 'pushed' to the public in the
US until very recently (and still, it is modest.)

The dishonest FUD campaigns against 8VSB/HDTV have probably been
the strongest public impression of HDTV until very recently. (Hey,
8vsb isnt' perfect, but claims that COFDM are 'the best' are mostly
only true for your hopefully dead mobile mass transit irritant
scheme.)


John
Anonymous
May 17, 2004 9:59:37 AM

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

In article <RbYpc.3349$H_3.591@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> By Bob Miller's reasoning, analog HDTV is an astounding and obvious
>> success because a lot were sold in Japan. Never mind that the rest of
>> the world rejected it.
>
> Never said this. Why do you feel compelled to put words in others mouths
> that they never said? Analog HDTV was a failure in Japan and not that
> many were sold over a ten year period. It was too costly and the analog
> modulation was a failure much like the use of 8-VSB for HDTV in the US
> is a failure.
>
How many homes had HDTV in Japan (well publicized) over the 10yrs, vs
how many HDTV tuners in the US, with almost NO publicity except
for your kind of FUD? Hint: the US is still on track WRT my
predictions made in the late 1980s!!! (In fact, it appears that
HDTV adoption vs. the effective 1998 introduction is FASTER than
my prediction -- not by much, however.)

>
> I have read no reports that anyone is refusing to buy HDTV sets in the
> three Japanese cities with OTA HDTV.
>
Remember: the US has HDTV probably in 100's of cities (or on the
order of 100.) The only reason to not buy an HDTV tuner has little
to do with the receivability, but instead the FUDish claims that
it doesnt work. YOUR FUD COST ME A DTV TUNER THAT I DIDN"T NEED!!!
I should have just purchased the HDTV, and ignored you. My
survey showed that inside my condo (well built, commercial metal
braced heavy construction with tile roof) that reception wasn't
significant trouble at all. The ONLY ISSUE was the front end
signal level and matching to make sure that the antenna works
as expected.

>>
>> Oh, and rabbit ears don't work in Japan. You have to have an outdoor
>> antenna.
>
> Strange that you should say that.
>
Rabbit ears work for my VHF reception here -- yep, almost no coherent
directivity at all, and my Ch9 reception for a 19kW transmitter
across town and premium construction works great!!!

>
> You don't need outdoor antennas period.
>

That is right, with 8VSB, and my interference laden living
environment and premium construction, I don't need an outdoor
antenna.

The only problems that I have seen is dealing with a very
wide dynamic range, interfering sources and a sloppy match
for tuner inputs.

John
!