Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I don't understand the 8VSB fuss and I find its relivance ..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 1:47:17 PM

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

Many people seem to think the US is being left behind -or- that we are
being slow to adopt HDTV. Most of these conclusions seem to revolve
around the 8VSB standard adopted by the FCC as the broadcast format
for DTV in the US and the problems with 8VSB always comes down to:
cost of tunners (expensive) and poor performance.

I don't feel 8VSB has much relivance, and futher I think anyone who
uses the number of consumers using 8VSB tuners as a metric to judge
the success of HDTV in the US has their own agenda.

So here is my case. First I think you have to look at the US consumer.
Almost everyone in the US has a television. We have over 200 million
people living in the US (that's people not households) and 40 million
of those have either cable or satellite television. Due some rough
math and it's easy to conclude that over half the US population has
cable or satellite service of some kind.

Then you have to look at the type of consumer in the US who would
spend $800 or more to buy an HDTV. I think we can conclude a very
large percentage (I would guess 90% or more) of this type of consumer
would fall into the half the subscribes to cable/sat service. This is
just an observation of US culture.

If the above is true, then you can see that "integrated" HDTV's with
8VSB OTA tuners are at huge disadvantage from the start. But now let's
throw in some other tid-bids. The top US retailers of HDTV (Best Buy,
Circut City, Sears, Conns, Tweeter, etc..) all all resalers of some
form of satellite service. When the average joe consumer walks into
the retailer and wants an HDTV the sales associate is likely to get
the question "what do I need to recieve HDTV broadcast" and that makes
a great leadin point for whatever satellite service they are selling
and even if that sales attempt fails the consumer always walks away
knowing:

A. That they can obtain HDTV though their satellite/cable provider
(they've likely been given a spill about how leasing a box makes more
since than investing in an integrated tunner as standards can change,
etc, etc...)

B. An HDTV with a built-in tunner cost hundreds more.

US consumers are penny pinchers (look at the success of Walmart) we'll
gladly buy products made in sweat shops in Korea just to save a buck
or two. So why buy an HDTV with a built in tunner when the cable/sat
provider is going to offer HD for a small investment. To help
influence this decision even more the retailers (for whatever reason)
don't carry all that many HDTVs with integrated tunners. A sales
associate at Circut City told me "we only carry 4-5 models with
integrated tunners, but we carry the Off tunner boxes". Circut City
see's the external tunner has a potential high-dollar add-on sale, so
why stock televisions with them built in?

Having owned a HDTV with an integrated 8SVB tunner for about a month
now, I feel I bit qualified to talk about it. I live approx 35 miles
from the broadcast towers. I'm surrounded by tall trees and I can pull
all the local networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, WB and UPN) in HD
over 8VSB with a $16 Philips set-top antenna I purchased from Walmart.
I hear all the rants about 8VSB and the COFDM battle and I just don't
care, because 8VSB works fine for me. Why should i care about other
standards? I also subscribe to digital cable and I have an HD cable
box. I pay the same amount of the HD box as I did for my non-HD
digital cable box and 85-90% of my TV viewing comes though cable. I
use the 8VSB tunner to pickup WB and UPN in HD because my cable
provider doesn't offer them. I also use it to watch one program while
I record another with my ReplayTV.

If you want to measure the success of HDTV, measure the number of
HD-ready televisions sold.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 9:10:34 PM

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

>I don't feel 8VSB has much relivance, and futher I think anyone who
>uses the number of consumers using 8VSB tuners as a metric to judge
>the success of HDTV in the US has their own agenda.
>

Hmm, sounds like BOB.
June 4, 2004 9:10:35 PM

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

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040604131034.16456.00000367@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >I don't feel 8VSB has much relivance, and futher I think anyone who
> >uses the number of consumers using 8VSB tuners as a metric to judge
> >the success of HDTV in the US has their own agenda.
> >
>
> Hmm, sounds like BOB.

>I'm surrounded by tall trees and I can pull
>all the local networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, WB and UPN) in HD
>over 8VSB with a $16 Philips set-top antenna I purchased from Walmart.
>I hear all the rants about 8VSB and the COFDM battle and I just don't
>care, because 8VSB works fine for me. Why should i care about other
>standards?

Bob he definitely ain't, Vidguy.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 9:32:30 PM

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

Yet more examples of Bob Miller's psychotic nonsense.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> As far as OTA DTV the US has been left behind.

The US has more OTA DTV channels nationwide than any other country on the
planet.

The only other country reported to have nationwide OTA DTV is the UK, and
reports are flooding in from the UK about reception problems due to
impulse noise and the necessity to erect directional outdoor antennas.
Bob Miller claims that it's because they use an "older" form of COFDM.

Bob Miller's other COFDM OTA DTV "success" stories are Berlin (*one* city
in Europe), Japan (three cities), and Australia (a handful of cities).

So much for the US being "left behind" on OTA DTV.

> As far as HDTV via OTA the US has been left behind.

The US has more HDTV via OTA channels nationwide than any other country on
the planet.

No other country on the planet has nationwide HDTV. Europe has no HDTV at
all. Japan only has HDTV in three cities (after spending 15 years trying
to get HDTV off the ground). Australia has a similar situation.

So much for the US being "left behind" on HDTV via OTA.

The only person left behind is Bob Miller. He made a bad investment on
equipment which is now useless, and now he is in a psychotic rage against
the HDTV community for not using his precious COFDM modulation. Reports
of excellent HDTV reception using 8VSB throughout the entire USA are
furthering his rage, as are the reports of ever-lowering prices for HDTV
TVs.

The thing that infuriated Bob Miller more than anything else is the
imminent requirement that large-screen TVs have a built in 8-VSB tuner.
This will be the final death of Bob Miller's dream.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 11:04:10 PM

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

>Bob he definitely ain't, Vidguy.
>
>

No, at times he sounded as if he was 'describing' our resident Snake Oil
Salesman, BOB.
June 4, 2004 11:04:11 PM

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

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040604150410.06123.00000348@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >Bob he definitely ain't, Vidguy.
> >
> >
>
> No, at times he sounded as if he was 'describing' our resident Snake Oil
> Salesman, BOB.

Gotcha.
His experiences sound a lot like mine. The digital stations practically
jumped into my STB in 1999, after Bob said it would never work in my type of
area.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 2:33:50 AM

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

JDeats wrote:

> Many people seem to think the US is being left behind -or- that we are
> being slow to adopt HDTV. Most of these conclusions seem to revolve
> around the 8VSB standard adopted by the FCC as the broadcast format
> for DTV in the US and the problems with 8VSB always comes down to:
> cost of tunners (expensive) and poor performance.

OTA broadcasting was singled out to lead the charge for HDTV in the US
because Congress and the FCC have a lot to say about OTA broadcasting
since broadcaster were given their spectrum for free. Broadcasters also
had gone to the FCC and Congress with the request for more spectrum to
do HDTV.

As far as OTA DTV the US has been left behind. As far as HDTV via OTA
the US has been left behind. HDTV is and will do well on cable,
satellite and via new ultra broadband IP networks that will first appear
and then grow rapidly over the next few years.
>
> I don't feel 8VSB has much relivance, and futher I think anyone who
> uses the number of consumers using 8VSB tuners as a metric to judge
> the success of HDTV in the US has their own agenda.

8-VSB does not have much relevance because of its problems of cost and
poor performance which translates into the "hassle factor" that is the
main reason that people will not go with OTA broadcasting. Most people
made a decision years ago to forget about OTA with an antenna because of
the "hassle factor". Digital OTA reception has an even greater hassle
factor than NTSC had. Bad reception with NTSC meant lines and snow with
8-VSB it means missing crucial parts of the game all together. And it
means directional antennas that require waiting between channel changes.

We drive around Manhattan receiving COFDM mobile with a remote changing
channels just like with cable at home. NO DELAY! NO Directional antenna.
>
> So here is my case. First I think you have to look at the US consumer.
> Almost everyone in the US has a television. We have over 200 million
> people living in the US (that's people not households) and 40 million
> of those have either cable or satellite television. Due some rough
> math and it's easy to conclude that over half the US population has
> cable or satellite service of some kind.

NO!! It is somewhere between 94 and 100% of US households that have
cable, satellite or another cable like service like MMDS or ADSL/VDSL.

Let me explain...
US 293,412,433 Population at 4:28 PM today (estimated)
US 109,297,000 Households June 12th 2003

And...
January 29, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/01/29/cable.competit...
"About 70.5 million households subscribe to cable; 23.7 million get
satellite service."
The same article says that about 3% have cable like service from others
such as telephone companies possibly MMDS wireless cable or ADSL/VDSL
services.
That totals 94.2 million (equals 97%) plus 3% equals 97.11 million
households out of 109.297 million which yields 88.85% of US households
have cable or satellite or something else legal.

That leaves 11.15% of those 109.297 million US households who rely on
OTA TV or DTV

But we haven't counted the pirates yet. USATODAY reports in 2002...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/acovmon.htm

"Cable operators say technology is starting to give them the upper hand
in trimming the ranks of the 3 million to 4 million people who
deliberately steal their signals."

Thats another 3 million households (minimum) who do not depend on OTA
broadcasting for their TV.

And...
"even though the satellite business, which reports 19 million paying
customers, is less than a third of cable's size.
For every five people buying DirecTV legitimately, there's one who's
getting a system with no connection to DirecTV,"

That would be one out of six satellite customers who do not depend on
OTA broadcasting for their TV. And the figure is 19 = 5 as x = 6 or 22.8
of which (subtract 19) 3.8 million households steal satellite.

3.8 + 3 = 6.8 million stolen cable and satellite households and that is
6.22% of 109.297 households so we have to subtract 6.22% from that
11.15% so we really have only 4.93% who depend on OTA.

OR DO THEY!!

From that organization with no reason to exaggerate the number of
households without a TV set at all, TVTURNOFF.org we read...

"Percentage of US households with at least one television: 98"
http://www.tvturnoff.org/images/facts&figs/factsheets/F...

So we have to subtract another 2%, representing households that have NO
TV AT ALL from 4.93% for a grand total of 2.93% of American households
who depend on OTA TV or DTV broadcasting.

And of course there is a plus or minus error rate of at least 3% in all
these number so we have a ZERO to 6% number of households who rely on
OTA today.

>
> Then you have to look at the type of consumer in the US who would
> spend $800 or more to buy an HDTV. I think we can conclude a very
> large percentage (I would guess 90% or more) of this type of consumer
> would fall into the half the subscribes to cable/sat service. This is
> just an observation of US culture.
>
> If the above is true, then you can see that "integrated" HDTV's with
> 8VSB OTA tuners are at huge disadvantage from the start.

That's right, from 94 to 100% or US consumers DO NOT NEED THE MANDATED
8-VSB tuner in their new TV set because they either are planning to hook
up to cable or lease a receiver from satellite. If these MANDATED
receivers only cost $100 (LOL) that would be a grand waste of between
100 x 109,297,000= $10,929,700,000 (that's billions) and 6% less than that.

The real horror would come when and if they actually tried to use these
receivers. They would then have the added expense of buying and
installing a rooftop rotorized antenna in most cases. Add $100 to $600
on to the bill.

But now let's throw in some other tid-bids. The top US retailers of
HDTV (Best Buy,
> Circut City, Sears, Conns, Tweeter, etc..) all all resalers of some
> form of satellite service. When the average joe consumer walks into
> the retailer and wants an HDTV the sales associate is likely to get
> the question "what do I need to recieve HDTV broadcast" and that makes
> a great leadin point for whatever satellite service they are selling
> and even if that sales attempt fails the consumer always walks away
> knowing:
>
> A. That they can obtain HDTV though their satellite/cable provider
> (they've likely been given a spill about how leasing a box makes more
> since than investing in an integrated tunner as standards can change,
> etc, etc...)

Point taken see above.
>
> B. An HDTV with a built-in tunner cost hundreds more.
>
> US consumers are penny pinchers (look at the success of Walmart) we'll
> gladly buy products made in sweat shops in Korea just to save a buck
> or two. So why buy an HDTV with a built in tunner when the cable/sat
> provider is going to offer HD for a small investment. To help
> influence this decision even more the retailers (for whatever reason)
> don't carry all that many HDTVs with integrated tunners. A sales
> associate at Circut City told me "we only carry 4-5 models with
> integrated tunners, but we carry the Off tunner boxes". Circut City
> see's the external tunner has a potential high-dollar add-on sale, so
> why stock televisions with them built in?

Very good question especially when you consider all the ways the value
of that box can be diminished. You have to be really crazy to buy an
8-VSB receiver. Most Americans are not crazy hence they are not buying
an 8-VSB receiver. Hence our government has to MANDATE said receivers.

Including a ruling from the FCC that all receivers must salute a flag to
get HDTV. Current ones don't salute so no HDTV if this happens.

Including the possible adoption of E-VSB by your broadcaster which will
effectively kill the possibility of receiving HDTV from them on your
current 8-VSB receiver.

Including the possibility that Congress could change the standard to
COFDM. Unlikely since I hear that better 8-VSB modems are on the way but
Australia, Argentina and Taiwan changed and S. Korea will change. The US
will be the only one left actually using 8-VSB in the world. It is so
insane to start out this far behind. And with OTA we still are just
starting our thanks to 8-VSB. Changing now would catapult the US way in
front of every other country including China.

Including the real possibility the broadcaster will get together and
pool their spectrum, reduce their MPEG2 programming to ONE SD channel
and use a more advanced codec to deliver more programming that will not
be receivable on your current 8-VSB receiver. That is what USDTV has
done already and will expand on with advanced codecs soon. And Emmis is
planning on buying out USDTV and has already organized 350 of the 1600
broadcast stations to join them. They expect another 450 to join by the
end of summer.

There is no way this in not going to happen other than Congress changing
the law and that would trigger massive lawsuits. What it means is that
you current receiver will only receive ONE SD program. Think positive
though your broadcasters may feel your pain and offer you a discount on
their new proprietary 8-VSB receiver or a discount on their new
subscription service to receive your HDTV programming OTA with the new
codec. All perfectly legal, discussed among them since 1999 that I know
of and the purpose of the way they (broadcasters) wrote the law originally.

Or if you are a pessimistic sort you could think negative and suspect
that broadcasters will do what USDTV is doing now, only SD programming
with the advanced codec. If so that would leave OTA with no HDTV at all
just like Europe. Anyone with HD content can still just down convert it
for OTA and sell it to cable and satellite as HD. After all the
broadcasters have less bandwidth.

Don't you just love your government? Still eating beef? I'm not.
>
> Having owned a HDTV with an integrated 8SVB tunner for about a month
> now, I feel I bit qualified to talk about it. I live approx 35 miles
> from the broadcast towers. I'm surrounded by tall trees and I can pull
> all the local networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, WB and UPN) in HD
> over 8VSB with a $16 Philips set-top antenna I purchased from Walmart.
> I hear all the rants about 8VSB and the COFDM battle and I just don't
> care, because 8VSB works fine for me. Why should i care about other
> standards? I also subscribe to digital cable and I have an HD cable
> box. I pay the same amount of the HD box as I did for my non-HD
> digital cable box and 85-90% of my TV viewing comes though cable. I
> use the 8VSB tunner to pickup WB and UPN in HD because my cable
> provider doesn't offer them. I also use it to watch one program while
> I record another with my ReplayTV.
>
> If you want to measure the success of HDTV, measure the number of
> HD-ready televisions sold.

I get it you don't care cause you got yours. Well that could bite you
some. But if you don't care if your current OTA receiver doesn't receive
HDTV anymore then you have nothing to worry about.

Want to measure the success of HDTV don't look at a third world DTV
country like the US, look at Japan, OZ and maybe China by the time of
their Olympics.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 2:33:51 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<iN6wc.1813$uX2.1430@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
....
> I get it you don't care cause you got yours. Well that could bite you
> some. But if you don't care if your current OTA receiver doesn't receive
> HDTV anymore then you have nothing to worry about.
>
> Want to measure the success of HDTV don't look at a third world DTV
> country like the US, look at Japan, OZ and maybe China by the time of
> their Olympics.

No, he doesn't care because contrary to your inaccurate propaganda
almost everyone who tries to receive ATSC OTA reports back here that
it works. Obviously self reported results are not going to be
statistically accurate but I find it remarkable how many continue to
get good results. Some of those (with good ATSC reception) have
specifically stated that their reception of NTSC was not satisfactory.
The loss of OTA to cable was due to lousy NTSC performance, not ATSC.
It remains to see if ATSC stands a chance of reversing the trend, but
the damage was done by NTSC.

Your second paragraph is both offensive and ridiculously wrong. From
current reports none of those countries have HD programming or
deployment that even deserves comparison to the US. How much HD
production is done for US television versus any of those countries?
How many places can it be viewed in those countries versus the area of
availability in the US? Don't forget this is an HDTV newsgroup, we
don't care about any wishy washy SD television whether it is analog or
digital. That is in another newsgroup.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 5:53:14 AM

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

>Gotcha.
>His experiences sound a lot like mine. The digital stations practically
>jumped into my STB in 1999, after Bob said it would never work in my type of
>area.

Yeah, that's the point Dave, it seems that BOB will always ignore or
'selectively forget' the myriad of positive posts of easy reception of 8VSB. To
say he is 'intellectually dishonest' is a stretch. To say he is dishonest is
not a stretch.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:20:55 AM

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

In article <20040604215314.00660.00000554@mb-m01.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>>Gotcha.
>>His experiences sound a lot like mine. The digital stations practically
>>jumped into my STB in 1999, after Bob said it would never work in my type of
>>area.
>
> Yeah, that's the point Dave, it seems that BOB will always ignore or
> 'selectively forget' the myriad of positive posts of easy reception of 8VSB. To
> say he is 'intellectually dishonest' is a stretch. To say he is dishonest is
> not a stretch.
>
I'd suspect that his problem results mostly from an extreme
business/personal disappointment where he had probably invested alot
of his heart and soul, during the internet boom. He saw the success
of relatively insignificant internet ventures, but the profits and
success passed him by.

Even though alot of Bob's claims are wrong, and it is easy to judge
him to be dishonest, I'd really like to think that it isn't that
his heart is corrupt, but he is scarred and emotionally damaged.

We don't owe him any compensation for his lack of success by the
destruction of HDTV in the US.

John
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:34:30 AM

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

>The only person left behind is Bob Miller. He made a bad investment on
>equipment which is now useless, and now he is in a psychotic rage against
>the HDTV community for not using his precious COFDM modulation.

You are 100% correct. That is at the center of BOB's psychosis. That has
probably made him the pathological liar he is. I don't believe I've ever read
more lies from one individual on the internet. THIS is why he was banned from
AVS. He couldn't possibly survive in ANY moderator driven forum. A scum like
this could only survive on an unregluated spot like a ng.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:45:00 AM

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

>Even though alot of Bob's claims are wrong, and it is easy to judge
>him to be dishonest, I'd really like to think that it isn't that
>his heart is corrupt, but he is scarred and emotionally damaged.
>
>We don't owe him any compensation for his lack of success by the
>destruction of HDTV in the US.
>
>John

I agree John, but it does not give him the right to do everything in his power
to prevent the masses from enjoying the glory of FREE OTA HDTV! If he did this
in an honest and competitive way, I would say 'go for it'. However, his style
is to lie, scare, embellish and cast enough doubt in a naive individual's mind,
to cast enough doubt so as to dissuade a potential HD purchase.
This is why I have repeatedly told BOB, I and others will always be here to
identify and strike down EACH AND EVERY LIE he tells. Scheisters like this MUST
be shown for what they are, sheisters.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 9:06:48 AM

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

Steve Bryan wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<iN6wc.1813$uX2.1430@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> ...
>
>>I get it you don't care cause you got yours. Well that could bite you
>>some. But if you don't care if your current OTA receiver doesn't receive
>>HDTV anymore then you have nothing to worry about.
>>
>>Want to measure the success of HDTV don't look at a third world DTV
>>country like the US, look at Japan, OZ and maybe China by the time of
>>their Olympics.
>
>
> No, he doesn't care because contrary to your inaccurate propaganda
> almost everyone who tries to receive ATSC OTA reports back here that
> it works. Obviously self reported results are not going to be
> statistically accurate but I find it remarkable how many continue to
> get good results. Some of those (with good ATSC reception) have
> specifically stated that their reception of NTSC was not satisfactory.

Yikes I had no idea sales of 8-VSB receivers was that bad. I know its
dismal, that no one advertises 8-VSB OTA receivers and that a lot of
them make it back to the dealer and are sold as open box specials
because of reception problems. I know that the CEA does not publish
sales figure for 8-VSB receivers because it is too embarrassing and that
they include 480i Plasma sets in they statistics. I know that in
frustration the FCC has has to MANDATE or force us to buy receivers. But
I had no idea that every sale of an 8-VSB receiver generated a positive
feedback here in this newsgroup. If so we can get a good count on actual
sales of OTA receivers by just counting positive responses here, so what
was it for the last month, 20?

Seriously the MSTV organization which is very pro 8-VSB says that good
reception by 8-VSB receivers is around 60% overall. If you have a
problem with that call them. That allows for a lot of happy campers. You
could get 60 positive responses a day here and still there would be 40
unhappy campers out there. The unhappy ones are less likely to complain.

> The loss of OTA to cable was due to lousy NTSC performance, not ATSC.
> It remains to see if ATSC stands a chance of reversing the trend, but
> the damage was done by NTSC.

They had the equivalent of NTSC in the UK and Berlin, PAL, and the same
reception problems that did the same "damage". Whatever "damage" to the
psyche that NTSC or PAL did to consumers the effects sure wore off fast
in Berlin. They have like a 15% penetration of OTA DTV receivers in a
Berlin that has 95% cable and satellite penetration after only 19 months
of DTV. We have less than ONE% after 6 years. I guess NTSC just
traumatized us a lot more than PAL did Europeans.

ATSC receivers to date had no chance to reverse the trend but with the
better receivers coming next year could especially with the new
proposals by USDTV and Emmis. These proposals will seal the fate of OTA
HDTV with MPEG2 and current receivers though. So just as 8-VSB finally
gets good enough to survive all current receivers become obsolete. The
only questions remaining are will HDTV OTA survive in the new codec part
of the channel? Will HDTV be then a part of an OTA subscription service?
Will the new 8-VSB receiver with CA be proprietary to some broadcaster
group?
>
> Your second paragraph is both offensive and ridiculously wrong. From
> current reports none of those countries have HD programming or
> deployment that even deserves comparison to the US. How much HD
> production is done for US television versus any of those countries?

Most production companies around the world are getting into HDTV in a
big way. They recognize that long term it will not pay to build
libraries of SD material. Europe especially is doing this especially
since the difference in production cost is not that much as I understand it.

I do not have figures on Japan but since they have been into HD far
longer than the US I would be surprised if they don't have significant
HD recourses. OZ is a very small country compared to the US but again
they are ahead of us in DTV receivers sold 5% penetration and are
simulcasting both digital 625 PAL and 1080i. They consider 625 PAL as
HD. Someone else would have to compare what they are doing to 720p.

> How many places can it be viewed in those countries versus the area of
> availability in the US?

OZ is being built out even in some very sparsely populated areas. Japan
will be built out. They just started broadcasting last December in three
cities. With a million integrated sets sold already I would say that OTA
HDTV in Japan is going to make OTA in the US look pathetic. I am hoping
that France goes HDTV.

Again I don't count transmitters just sales of receivers. In the end
that is all that counts. We just are not selling many. The MANDATE will
not help much. What will help will be the new better receivers. It will
be to bad that the US will be stuck with more expensive receivers, the
need for outdoor antennas and no mobility. We could have led the world
in DTV and still could if we switched. What the better receivers may do
is just let 8-VSB survive and stick the US with this inferior system for
a long time. That works for me an our business just perfectly.
Unfortunately it is a bad outcome for the US consumer.

Don't forget this is an HDTV newsgroup, we
> don't care about any wishy washy SD television whether it is analog or
> digital. That is in another newsgroup.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 9:06:49 AM

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

> I do not have figures on Japan but since they have been into HD far
> longer than the US I would be surprised if they don't have significant
> HD recourses.

The current hot thing in Japan is to send HD over IP using fiber. The
advantages of dense housing... :-) They are also in a big hurry to move to
H.264.

The latest numbers I saw, I believe Japan was number 1 in HDTV sales by
quite a bit. It was surprising.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 11:43:32 AM

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

No. Bob and I disagree on the 8VSB discussion in that his opinion is
that the US is "a third-world country" in terms of HDTV. The primary
point of my post was that 8VSB (or whatever standard we adopt) doesn't
really matter because so few of us rely on OTA, but the secondary
point is that 8VSB's failure is due to our culture and the fact that
we don't use OTA now; this combined with retailers and what the
selectively stock, lots of factors.

My experience with 8VSB (and I feel this is a worthless discussion) is
that it works quite well with an inexpensive antenna, it may not work
for all, but it works for me. Looking at Bobs issues with 8VSB, I
don't see the same problems. The "puse between channel changes" that
Bob talks about is about 2 seconds, it's about the same as when I
switch channels on my digital cable box. it's a non-issue. His other
problem with 8VSB seems to be the fact that when the signal goes you
get a black screen with a box saying "Weak signal" instead of a snowy
picture. That happens so rarely for me that it's also a non-issue.

The high cost of external 8VSB tunners is all about supply and demand.
If you shop around you can find a HDTV with it's integrated tuner
counterpart at only $100 more (e.g. I recently bought an Hitachi
57T600 with integrated tunner for $1999, the non-integrated version of
the TV (57T500) sold for only $100 less) you could go to Walmart and
buy a Sanyo HT30744 30" direct view HDTV which as 8VSB tunner build in
for about $750 (if the tunner inside was really worth $400, well
that's over half the price of the set... sorry I don't buy into it).
So I think there is some evidence that the cost is supply and demand
related. In that regard the manditory switch the DTV should help
considerably, because at that point (should we ever get there)
integrated tunners will be required and the manufactuers will find a
way to keep cost down, again I believe this is already within their
means).

Bob doesn't believe the FCC should mandate anything, but I believe
they have to in order for OTA to survive and it's been a success when
you consider how many broadcasters have switched over and are now
sending digital signal. To that end, it's been a huge success and
maybe that was the idea in the first place. No other country in the
world offers has much OTA HD programming as the US, no one even comes
close. But to judge the number of OTA 8VSB tunner boxes sold or the
number of integred HDTV's with 8VSB tunners as a metric for HD succes
isn't accurate.

Bob has an agenda to push CODFM or nothing. I have no agenda other
than to help clear up the misconceptions about HDTV in the US.

-Jeremy








He dislikes 8VSB with a passion and will

vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote in message news:<20040604131034.16456.00000367@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> >I don't feel 8VSB has much relivance, and futher I think anyone who
> >uses the number of consumers using 8VSB tuners as a metric to judge
> >the success of HDTV in the US has their own agenda.
> >
>
> Hmm, sounds like BOB.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 5:16:51 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:Ixcwc.22072$Tn6.21955
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Seriously the MSTV organization which is very pro 8-VSB says that good
> reception by 8-VSB receivers is around 60% overall. If you have a
> problem with that call them. That allows for a lot of happy campers.
>

How 'bout a link to support this? Based on your past distortions, we really
have not idea what "60% overall" represents.

> You
> could get 60 positive responses a day here and still there would be 40
> unhappy campers out there. The unhappy ones are less likely to complain.

If you really believe that, you have very little experience with newsgroups
or people in general. Most "happy campers" keep pretty quiet, while folks
with complaints (legitimate complaints, or, like yours, illegitimate) tend
to scream, shout, whine, moan, groan, and complain to everyone everywhere,
regardless of whether the recipiants of all that noise want to hear or read
it.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:29:20 PM

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

>Your second paragraph is both offensive and ridiculously wrong. From
>current reports none of those countries have HD programming or
>deployment that even deserves comparison to the US. How much HD
>production is done for US television versus any of those countries?
>How many places can it be viewed in those countries versus the area of
>availability in the US? Don't forget this is an HDTV newsgroup, we
>don't care about any wishy washy SD television whether it is analog or
>digital. That is in another newsgroup.

Your absolutely correct, but as you know, BOB is not interested in FACTS, he's
only interested in scaring people with LIES, DISTORTIONS and EMBELLISHMENTS. He
has no shame, no integrity and could care less that he's trying, unsuccessfully
I might add, to slow the growth of HD in the U.S. He then has the chutzpah, to
talk about the slow growth of HD in the U.S. as if it had ANYTHING to do with
8VSB.

He is simply a filthy liar.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:46:01 PM

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

>> No, he doesn't care because contrary to your inaccurate propaganda
>> almost everyone who tries to receive ATSC OTA reports back here that
>> it works. Obviously self reported results are not going to be
>> statistically accurate but I find it remarkable how many continue to
>> get good results. Some of those (with good ATSC reception) have
>> specifically stated that their reception of NTSC was not satisfactory.
>
BOB's quote: "Yikes I had no idea sales of 8-VSB receivers was that bad."

Now folks, just to show how utterly innane BOB's remarks can be, please read
the first paragraph written by a poster in response to more of BOB's lies and
then read BOB's response to that post. Here the first poster talks about how
well most people are reporting that 8VSB works and then BOB turns around and
says "Yikes, I didn't realize how bad the sales of 8VSB receivers are". HUH?
HUH? This imbocile, this lying bastard, will just distort ANYTHING and
EVERYTHING. I'd bet he'd cheat his own mother out of a $1 if he could. He is
THE most despicable character I've ever run into on the internet. BAR NONE!

> I know its
>dismal, that no one advertises 8-VSB OTA receivers

Patently and utterly FALSE. You are a God damn LIAR.

>I know that the CEA does not publish
>sales figure for 8-VSB receivers because it is too embarrassing and that
>they include 480i Plasma sets in they statistics.

First off you idiot, every HD satellite receiver regardless of satellite
provider, contains an 8VSB receiver. You ALWAYS fail to mention that. Second,
virtually everyone who buys a 480P (that's P BOB, not 480i) can see a DRAMATIC
difference in HD vs SD on these plasmas. So people will go out of their way to
hook them up to 8VSB receivers whether they're stand alone or contained within
a satellite receiver. You are a DAMN LIAR.

>But
>I had no idea that every sale of an 8-VSB receiver generated a positive
>feedback here in this newsgroup.

Of course not you SNAKE OIL SALESMAN, you totally disregard EVERY DAMN post
that talks about the success of 8VSB. BOB, are you simply a MORON, do you not
have the ability to READ, do you selectively filter out what you read, or can
you simply not help yourself because you are a pathological liar. You were
kicked of the AVS forum for good reason BOB, you were caught in lies almost
every single day.

>If so we can get a good count on actual
>sales of OTA receivers by just counting positive responses here, so what
>was it for the last month, 20?
>

The above is so utterl INNANE, I don't even know where to begin. BOB is
suggesting that EVERYONE who buys an 8VSB receiver (stand alone or integrated
into a satellite receiver) comes to this ng and posts their results. If this
isn't the DUMBEST comment I've ever read on the internet, then I don't know
what is. I'm done with this post, enough lies for one day.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 8:52:16 PM

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

>Bob has an agenda to push CODFM or nothing. I have no agenda other
>than to help clear up the misconceptions about HDTV in the US.
>
>-Jeremy
>

You got it Jeremy. This is why it's important to read and refute ALL of BOB's
posts. This is only for the purpose of educating people who are new here and
not aware of BOB's pathological lying behaviors that got him kicked off of the
AVS forum. He hasn't stopped lying since. Of course since this is an
unmoderated forum, he can simply lie lie lie. THAT he does very very well. I
find him one of the most despicable posters I've ever read on the internet,
regardless of subject area.
June 5, 2004 10:46:40 PM

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

"Steve Bryan" <steve_bryan@mac.com> wrote

> No, he doesn't care because contrary to your inaccurate propaganda
> almost everyone who tries to receive ATSC OTA reports back here that
> it works.

Bob Miller had been an extremely arrogant poster on the AVS forum for
about a year: non-stop-hijacking of unrelated threads, using [obvious]
aliases, ignoring moderators remarks/scoldings and other members pleas, and
just being an all-around incredible jerk.

The tide began to turn against Bob around October of '99, when AVS forum
members [like me] started connecting new RCA DTC-100 receivers to their
HDTVs. The reviews on the DTC-100 8-VSB antenna section began to trickle in,
mentioning suprisingly good reception, easy antenna location, wow-what a
picture, rock solid reception, etc etc.

*Of course*, there were some who had problems, but usually they were fixed.

The expected problems related to multipath were simply accepted and then
alternatives were explored.

Some members made postings [in Dec. 99] like, "Jeez, I can't believe how
fantastic OTA HDTV is working here! I hate to say it, but I'm starting to
think that guy robmx is nothing but a liar....".

Miller was ejected from the AVS forum about mid-2000, accompanied with a
HUGE COLLECTIVE SIGH OF RELIEF.

It's a shame that Gouger and Bott had to delete all of Miller's rubbish, it
might be amusing reading today. ;-)
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 1:09:29 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Pgmwc.2370
> > point of my post was that 8VSB (or whatever standard we adopt) doesn't
> > really matter because so few of us rely on OTA, but the secondary
> > point is that 8VSB's failure is due to our culture and the fact that
> > we don't use OTA now; this combined with retailers and what the
> > selectively stock, lots of factors.
>
> What a way to twist this. The failure of OTA in the US has to do with
> our CULTURE not the fact that 8-VSB is a poor modulation. We in the US
> have chosen cable and satellite and could not possibly change our minds
> no matter what modulation was used here. You suggest that unlike the
> German's who have embraced a free OTA DTV system that delivers 30
> channels and who are canceling their cable subscriptions, we in the US
> would do no such thing.
>
> I disagree. If such a free OTA system were offered in the US consumers
> would flock to it in numbers and speed that would make Berlin and
> England look slow.

You're wrong about that. It's really that simple. We love cable and
satellite in this country and are willing to pay for it. FCC regulates
OTA diferently for content, but also cable has opened the door for all
kinds of other things. These statments prove that you have another
agenda... to eleminate cable and satellite providers. While I'd love
to save the $40+ there's just a huge transition that would have to
take place for that to hapen here. You're not realist.


> You would be able to buy OTA DTV receivers in
> supermarkets on sale for $40 just like you can now in England. And every
> device that was portable would include DTV OTA receivers including your
> cell phones, laptops, PDA's Pocket PCs, game machines etc.
>
>

All of that has great novelity value, but nothing more. Who would want
to watch television on a cell phone screen? I think obtaining
information is the more important thing and wireless internet brings
that to people now.
OTA is not important in the US and that does have everything to do
with our culture. That really sums up what I have to say.

-Jeremy
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:10:13 AM

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

JDeats wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Pgmwc.2370
>
>>>point of my post was that 8VSB (or whatever standard we adopt) doesn't
>>>really matter because so few of us rely on OTA, but the secondary
>>>point is that 8VSB's failure is due to our culture and the fact that
>>>we don't use OTA now; this combined with retailers and what the
>>>selectively stock, lots of factors.
>>
>>What a way to twist this. The failure of OTA in the US has to do with
>>our CULTURE not the fact that 8-VSB is a poor modulation. We in the US
>>have chosen cable and satellite and could not possibly change our minds
>>no matter what modulation was used here. You suggest that unlike the
>>German's who have embraced a free OTA DTV system that delivers 30
>>channels and who are canceling their cable subscriptions, we in the US
>>would do no such thing.
>>
>>I disagree. If such a free OTA system were offered in the US consumers
>>would flock to it in numbers and speed that would make Berlin and
>>England look slow.
>
>
> You're wrong about that. It's really that simple. We love cable and
> satellite in this country and are willing to pay for it. FCC regulates
> OTA diferently for content, but also cable has opened the door for all
> kinds of other things. These statments prove that you have another
> agenda... to eleminate cable and satellite providers. While I'd love
> to save the $40+ there's just a huge transition that would have to
> take place for that to hapen here. You're not realist.

That is what was said just before the launch of Freeview in England.
Almost everyone thought was going to be a bust. I argued at the time
that it would be a fantastic success. Same in Berlin everyone predicted
failure. Even those who were building the system argued with me over my
contention that it too would be a fantastic success. Berlin is 95% cable
and satellite. Everyone predicted that most Berliners would not even pay
attention to the new OTA service.

Berlin and the UK both have 15% penetration or more after 18 months
compared to our ONE% after 6 years.

Cable in Berlin is already crying foul. And if you think many Americans
wouldn't love to dump cable and satellite for a free service or a
free/subscription combo service that also offers mobile reception hold
on to your seat because this is going to happen and it will make the UK
and Berlin look like slow motion. There is an incredible demand to dump
cable and satellite and for a service that is easier and better than
current OTA DTV or TV..
>
>
>>You would be able to buy OTA DTV receivers in
>>supermarkets on sale for $40 just like you can now in England. And every
>>device that was portable would include DTV OTA receivers including your
>>cell phones, laptops, PDA's Pocket PCs, game machines etc.
>>
>
> All of that has great novelity value, but nothing more. Who would want
> to watch television on a cell phone screen? I think obtaining
> information is the more important thing and wireless internet brings
> that to people now.
> OTA is not important in the US and that does have everything to do
> with our culture. That really sums up what I have to say.

Who would want to watch TV on a cell phone. That's right take the most
extreme example. Well you and I wouldn't that's for sure. And I for one
do not want to take pictures with my cell phone. That does not in any
way have an impact on the sales figures for cell phones with digital
cameras in them does it.

The rest of the story is that ubiquitous reception of DTV on all kinds
of devices with built in antennas and various screen sizes will ensure
receivers in almost anything you can think of. These receivers cost all
of $25 to $30 built in to other devices now. Compare to your 8-VSB c**p
receivers at $300 with their need for rooftop antennas.

OTA TV is important where ever it is offered and works. What is not
important is cable and satellite if OTA works. Cable and satellite only
were created because OTA didn't work well. Other services offered on
cable today may still be offered by a greatly diminished cable tomorrow
like broadband and VOIP but both of those will also come in your window
at 100 Mbps to a Gbps at lower cost and this wireless PtoP services will
also deliver Internet, VOIP and DTV.

Either cable morphs into this other wireless or they go poof.

These "novelty value" items as you describe them will put all current
business models out of business.

Bob Miller
>
> -Jeremy
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 5:30:58 PM

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

>You would be able to buy OTA DTV receivers in
>> supermarkets on sale for $40 just like you can now in England. And every

Once again the lying, deceptive Snake Oil Salesman, BOB, doesn't tell you that
these are NOT HD receivers. Oh that's right, he could care less about HD.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:30:53 PM

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

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040604131034.16456.00000367@mb-m10.aol.com...
: >I don't feel 8VSB has much relivance, and futher I think anyone who
: >uses the number of consumers using 8VSB tuners as a metric to judge
: >the success of HDTV in the US has their own agenda.
: >
:
: Hmm, sounds like BOB.

================
My thoughts exactly.
================
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:32:31 PM

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

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406040847.18243953@posting.google.com...

: a great leadin point for whatever satellite service they are selling
: and even if that sales attempt fails the consumer always walks away
: knowing:
:
: A. That they can obtain HDTV though their satellite/cable provider
: (they've likely been given a spill about how leasing a box makes more
: since than investing in an integrated tunner as standards can change,
: etc, etc...)

================
But none of the satelites provide ALL of the HD networks that I can get
OTA.
In fact, Directv provides NONE of them and Comcast still does not have
CBS (the biggest HD provider)
==============
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 6:53:11 AM

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

"Steve Bryan" <steve_bryan@mac.com> wrote in message
news:10be2ecc.0406041955.79659b63@posting.google.com...
> almost everyone who tries to receive ATSC OTA reports back here that
> it works. Obviously self reported results are not going to be

Taken literally, your statement says that almost everyone in the United
States watching OTA ATSC has reported their results to this newsgroup (and
that the results were positive!). Another poster did indeed take your
statement literally. I prefer to assume that you simply misphrased your
post. :-)

It's quite hilarious that some posters are making wild claims of OTA
reception success, based not on valid statistics (random sampling of
American households) but rather on anecdotal evidence from geeks who tweak
their electronics and then post the results on a Usenet newsgroup. Such
posters then slander their debating opponent for "lies" because his
anecdotal evidence, like mine, happens to be very different.

I will just briefly point out the counter-evidence:

1) I have a sample size of two: myself, and a friend who was also willing to
try OTA ATSC. We both went to considerable effort--far beyond what anyone
but a geek would be willing to do--in order to get a reasonable level of
operation. Like typical geeks who refuse to admit failure, we both consider
our current systems a "success" simply because, after all this effort, we
are able to pull in *most* of the digital channels *most* of the time. For
a geek, that's good enough. For the general public, that's considered
failure compared to NTSC, which both my friend and I never had any problem
with.

2) The dreaded Wives of America have rejected, almost en masse, roof
antennas; nor do I expect this totally irrational but also almost universal
revulsion to change any time soon. Therefore, any long-term evaluation of
the success of OTA ATSC must primarily focus on attic and set-top antenna
installations. I myself am lucky enough to be unmarried and so do have a
roof antenna, but my friend is unfortunately stuck. :-(

3) Many of the dreaded Wives of America have also shown very little interest
in HD at all, especially if it requires any increase in time, effort, or
gadgetry. One wife I know made clear that she really doesn't care about
picture quality as long as the TV can be hung on the wall like a picture
frame. Another wife still doesn't know what the ATSC tuner is good for and
would rather just throw it in the garbage because it doesn't look nice.
After all, she got the usual NTSC channels just fine before, and she either
can't see HD as an improvement or sees it as a totally superfluous one.

4) Good prices on ATSC receivers have occurred recently precisely because
those stores (Best Buy, Sears) are clearing out unwanted, otherwise
unsalable stock. The best regular price on an ATSC receiver I've seen is
Walmart's $200 one, and that one is clearly being marketed as part of an
eventual subscription-TV strategy (US DTV).

5) Buy.com has noted, on the famous Silver Sensor (Zenith ZHD-TV1), a
Special Returns Policy:

"Due to manufacturers' policies, buy.com cannot accept returns on this item
for any reason. The manufacturer will handle all exchanges and replacements.
Please contact the manufacturer directly and they will assist you with
repair or replacements. NO REFUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PRODUCT UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS PRODUCT CAN ONLY BE RETURNED FOR REPAIR OR EXCHANGE."

This is quite obviously a kiss of death. Clearly, Zenith must have been
getting an enormous percentage of returns-for-refund on this product, and
hence is now refusing to allow any more. This presumably mean that an
enormous percentage of the people who buy this product try it out, find it
won't actually bring in many (or any?) HD channels, and then demand their
money back. And Zenith has absolutely no ready solution to this but to
refuse to refund those customers' money!

According to buy.com, the Zenith GEMDTV1 is under a similar policy.
Shouldn't Zenith, with its close relationship with 8VSB, be *encouraging*
consumers to try OTA HDTV rather than warning them in advance of its likely
failure (by refusing, in advance, to refund their money)?


So, do I myself have valid statistics on 8VSB reception? No, but until
*someone* can show such statistics (based on random sampling of American
households), all evidence is anecdotal, and the only "liar" is someone who
makes a sweeping "almost everyone" statement on the subject. Any such
statement is obviously false, because the anecdotal evidence varies widely.
But I do suggest a few ground rules:

1) Roof antennas don't count--not for households with wives, anyway.

2) Geeky electronic tweaking doesn't count either--except for the very small
percentage of households actually populated by geeks.

3) Satellite receivers that have 8VSB capability don't count unless the
owner is actually receiving OTA ATSC satisfactorily. In other words,
satellite receiver sales do not necessarily indicate 8VSB success because
the owner may not be using it for that purpose. We would need valid
statistics on actual OTA ATSC viewing via satellite receivers.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:26:45 AM

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

In article <rMQwc.20669$eH1.9308209@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> writes:
>
> 2) The dreaded Wives of America have rejected, almost en masse, roof
> antennas; nor do I expect this totally irrational but also almost universal
> revulsion to change any time soon.
>
In this case, the guys who marry the intolerante ogres get what
they deserve, and should be forced to watch Bob's tampon commercials
for their own stupidity.

John
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 10:06:15 AM

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

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

> "Steve Bryan" <steve_bryan@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:10be2ecc.0406041955.79659b63@posting.google.com...
>
>>almost everyone who tries to receive ATSC OTA reports back here that
>>it works. Obviously self reported results are not going to be
>
>
> Taken literally, your statement says that almost everyone in the United
> States watching OTA ATSC has reported their results to this newsgroup (and
> that the results were positive!). Another poster did indeed take your
> statement literally. I prefer to assume that you simply misphrased your
> post. :-)
>
> It's quite hilarious that some posters are making wild claims of OTA
> reception success, based not on valid statistics (random sampling of
> American households) but rather on anecdotal evidence from geeks who tweak
> their electronics and then post the results on a Usenet newsgroup. Such
> posters then slander their debating opponent for "lies" because his
> anecdotal evidence, like mine, happens to be very different.
>
> I will just briefly point out the counter-evidence:
>
> 1) I have a sample size of two: myself, and a friend who was also willing to
> try OTA ATSC. We both went to considerable effort--far beyond what anyone
> but a geek would be willing to do--in order to get a reasonable level of
> operation. Like typical geeks who refuse to admit failure, we both consider
> our current systems a "success" simply because, after all this effort, we
> are able to pull in *most* of the digital channels *most* of the time. For
> a geek, that's good enough. For the general public, that's considered
> failure compared to NTSC, which both my friend and I never had any problem
> with.
>
> 2) The dreaded Wives of America have rejected, almost en masse, roof
> antennas; nor do I expect this totally irrational but also almost universal
> revulsion to change any time soon. Therefore, any long-term evaluation of
> the success of OTA ATSC must primarily focus on attic and set-top antenna
> installations. I myself am lucky enough to be unmarried and so do have a
> roof antenna, but my friend is unfortunately stuck. :-(
>
> 3) Many of the dreaded Wives of America have also shown very little interest
> in HD at all, especially if it requires any increase in time, effort, or
> gadgetry. One wife I know made clear that she really doesn't care about
> picture quality as long as the TV can be hung on the wall like a picture
> frame. Another wife still doesn't know what the ATSC tuner is good for and
> would rather just throw it in the garbage because it doesn't look nice.
> After all, she got the usual NTSC channels just fine before, and she either
> can't see HD as an improvement or sees it as a totally superfluous one.
>
> 4) Good prices on ATSC receivers have occurred recently precisely because
> those stores (Best Buy, Sears) are clearing out unwanted, otherwise
> unsalable stock. The best regular price on an ATSC receiver I've seen is
> Walmart's $200 one, and that one is clearly being marketed as part of an
> eventual subscription-TV strategy (US DTV).
>
> 5) Buy.com has noted, on the famous Silver Sensor (Zenith ZHD-TV1), a
> Special Returns Policy:
>
> "Due to manufacturers' policies, buy.com cannot accept returns on this item
> for any reason. The manufacturer will handle all exchanges and replacements.
> Please contact the manufacturer directly and they will assist you with
> repair or replacements. NO REFUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PRODUCT UNDER ANY
> CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS PRODUCT CAN ONLY BE RETURNED FOR REPAIR OR EXCHANGE."
>
> This is quite obviously a kiss of death. Clearly, Zenith must have been
> getting an enormous percentage of returns-for-refund on this product, and
> hence is now refusing to allow any more. This presumably mean that an
> enormous percentage of the people who buy this product try it out, find it
> won't actually bring in many (or any?) HD channels, and then demand their
> money back. And Zenith has absolutely no ready solution to this but to
> refuse to refund those customers' money!
>
> According to buy.com, the Zenith GEMDTV1 is under a similar policy.
> Shouldn't Zenith, with its close relationship with 8VSB, be *encouraging*
> consumers to try OTA HDTV rather than warning them in advance of its likely
> failure (by refusing, in advance, to refund their money)?
>

Zenith stands to gain the most since they own the IP royalty rights to
8-VSB and make a large % of thier profits off of HDTV monitors. Pushing
for 8-VSB has cost them more in profits from lost and delayed sales of
HDTV monitors than they will make from sales of receivers and all the IP
royalty proceeds. They have shot themselves in the foot with 8-VSB. In
S. Korea this is starting to be admitted as other manufacturers are now
joining with broadcasters there to DEMAND that thier government switch
to COFDM. They say that the entire country of S.Korea should no be held
hostage to 8-VSB. It is hurting all of them.
>
> So, do I myself have valid statistics on 8VSB reception? No, but until
> *someone* can show such statistics (based on random sampling of American
> households), all evidence is anecdotal, and the only "liar" is someone who
> makes a sweeping "almost everyone" statement on the subject. Any such
> statement is obviously false, because the anecdotal evidence varies widely.
> But I do suggest a few ground rules:
>
> 1) Roof antennas don't count--not for households with wives, anyway.
>
> 2) Geeky electronic tweaking doesn't count either--except for the very small
> percentage of households actually populated by geeks.
>
> 3) Satellite receivers that have 8VSB capability don't count unless the
> owner is actually receiving OTA ATSC satisfactorily. In other words,
> satellite receiver sales do not necessarily indicate 8VSB success because
> the owner may not be using it for that purpose. We would need valid
> statistics on actual OTA ATSC viewing via satellite receivers.
>
The CEA was counting sales of satellite/OTA receivers in the past even
if the sale was to someone where no DTV broadcast was even on the air.
There were stories of people who did not even know that their satellite
receiver could be used for OTA. Thanks for a very good post and a little
support. It gets lonely here sometimes.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:20:23 PM

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

True, but they do provide 8VSB OTA tunners built into their boxes.
That's a tunner you are leasing from them (or have purchased) along
with the box.

-Jeremy


"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<40c3b43b$0$81014$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>...
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0406040847.18243953@posting.google.com...
>
> : a great leadin point for whatever satellite service they are selling
> : and even if that sales attempt fails the consumer always walks away
> : knowing:
> :
> : A. That they can obtain HDTV though their satellite/cable provider
> : (they've likely been given a spill about how leasing a box makes more
> : since than investing in an integrated tunner as standards can change,
> : etc, etc...)
>
> ================
> But none of the satelites provide ALL of the HD networks that I can get
> OTA.
> In fact, Directv provides NONE of them and Comcast still does not have
> CBS (the biggest HD provider)
> ==============
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:51:52 PM

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

>1) Roof antennas don't count--not for households with wives, anyway.
>
>2) Geeky electronic tweaking doesn't count either--except for the very small
>percentage of households actually populated by geeks.
>
>3) Satellite receivers that have 8VSB capability don't count unless the
>owner is actually receiving OTA ATSC satisfactorily. In other words,
>satellite receiver sales do not necessarily indicate 8VSB success because
>the owner may not be using it for that purpose. We would need valid
>statistics on actual OTA ATSC viewing via satellite receivers.

WOW! Nothing like stacking the deck! Are you related to BOB? No, are you BOB?
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:56:04 PM

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

>In this case, the guys who marry the intolerante ogres get what
>they deserve, and should be forced to watch Bob's tampon commercials
>for their own stupidity.

HA HA HA HA!!! Now THAT'S funny!!
June 8, 2004 12:33:06 AM

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

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote >
> It's quite hilarious that some posters are making wild claims of OTA
> reception success,

It's even more hilarious that many British posters are making so many claims
of terrible ongoing reception problems due to impulse noise interference.

The Brits have to be careful not to aim their aerials at busy roadways, a
little motorscooter passing by ruins the picture. LOL...it's not even HDTV
either... is it any wonder their STB's are so cheap?

Miller doesn't like to admit that the BBC officially discourages indoor
antennas for British digital television. LOL!

That is the very same system that COFDM clowns like Miller and others were
cheerleading for in '99. He'll try to squirm and lie about that, but it's
true...

Thank God we didn't end up that cheap, feeble COFDM system here. Our HDTV
transition would have been totally ruined.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 6:07:57 AM

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

>Miller doesn't like to admit that the BBC officially discourages indoor
>antennas for British digital television. LOL!
>
>That is the very same system that COFDM clowns like Miller and others were
>cheerleading for in '99. He'll try to squirm and lie about that, but it's
>true...
>
>Thank God we didn't end up that cheap, feeble COFDM system here. Our HDTV
>transition would have been totally ruined.

BINGO!!! Right you are!
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 2:52:30 PM

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

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607135152.16952.00000550@mb-m10.aol.com...
> WOW! Nothing like stacking the deck! Are you related to BOB? No, are you
BOB?

No, I simply wanted to bring the discussion a little closer to everyday
life. Unmarried geeks like me/us need to remember we are only a very small
part of America.
!