Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AVSForum hinders HDTV the most

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 7:53:05 AM

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

This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...

I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.

Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the plunge.

And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...

"He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
performance issues too."

The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
far better modulation system exist.

In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
issues too."

If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
should not have a "but" in it. For example....

"Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.

Then Ken H goes further.

"The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
"LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""

This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.

After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.

More about : avsforum hinders hdtv

Anonymous
June 24, 2004 7:53:06 AM

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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Many times such a visitor
> will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from saving them from buying
> into OTA HDTV.

What Bob Miller doesn't mention that these "visitors" are his sock
puppets, ever since he was banned from AVSForum.

He even reportedly once "coached" his daughter to post an anti-8VSB
screed! Talk about creepy! "Daddy good. Sleep now."

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 9:24:21 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>snipped Bob's long-winded rant>

yawn...

borromini
Related resources
June 24, 2004 12:51:52 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:53:05 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

<snp>

Bob!

What are you doing posting here!

Don't you kno there's no time to waste!

Hurry, convincing everyone to convert to COFDM is way too important
for you to be wasting your time posting here. We certainly can't do
anything about it, spend your time convincing those who can.

Once the conversion is complete then come back and talk to us about
HDTV.






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 1:11:49 PM

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

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Many times such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on
>> AVSForum from saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.

Bob is still trying to create a problem in the first place. Everyone
I know gets HDTV OTA just fine. I get NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, UPN, WB all
over the air perfectly, and I'm in a small valley over 16 miles from
the towers.

Bob, it's a shame for you that the real world does not match your
dream world. The current HDTV OTA method works great! Give it a
rest, and stop scaring people away from what could be a great
television viewing experience!
June 24, 2004 2:08:15 PM

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

> He even reportedly once "coached" his daughter to post an anti-8VSB
> screed! Talk about creepy! "Daddy good. Sleep now."
>
> -- Mark --

"Poor daddy... did those meanies at the AVS forum really sh*itcan you?"
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 4:13:16 PM

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

The thing I like about Booby, is the more he rents and raves, the more money
he's loosing, and that makes me very happy! ...............



"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
> writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>
>
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
> I have often said on AVSForum ......
June 24, 2004 5:31:32 PM

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

Hey Bob, answer honestly.

Do you stand to profit financially if COFDM becomes the standard?



"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
> writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>
>
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
> I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
> of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
> further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
> and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
> such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
> saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>
> Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the
plunge.
>
> And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
> by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
> doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
>
> "He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
> which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
> as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
> performance issues too."
>
> The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
> that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
> suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
> far better modulation system exist.
>
> In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
> than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
> issues too."
>
> If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
> should not have a "but" in it. For example....
>
> "Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
> has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
> in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.
>
> Then Ken H goes further.
>
> "The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
> "LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
> reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
> technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
> broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""
>
> This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
> listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
> disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
> not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
> better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
> broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
> to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
> done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
> again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.
>
> After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
> prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
> it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
> acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 7:58:02 PM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Many times such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on
>>> AVSForum from saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>
>
> Bob is still trying to create a problem in the first place. Everyone I
> know gets HDTV OTA just fine. I get NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, UPN, WB all
> over the air perfectly, and I'm in a small valley over 16 miles from the
> towers.
>
> Bob, it's a shame for you that the real world does not match your dream
> world. The current HDTV OTA method works great! Give it a rest, and
> stop scaring people away from what could be a great television viewing
> experience!

I don't know how you missed it but I was not the author of the New York
Times article. Now was I the source of his material.

AVSForum was the source of his material. The New york times has more
reach than I do. I post what I see here and a few other places. Those on
AVSForum and the New York Times have MAJOR influence.

You can tell me all you want that 8-VSB has no problems. I know the
reality because I deal with it everyday.

You had better tell the New York Times that there is no problem because
they think there is. And they get their info from, at least in this
case, AVSForum.

It is no secret all you have to do is go there and read the post every
day. Problems problems and more problems. They spell it out in detail.
STAY AWAY FROM OTA!!

You have bad receivers, all kinds of problems with antennas and it goes
on and on. The basic message at AVSForum is deal with OTA for now with
all its problems until cable and satellite have more content and then
switch.

No one not a masocist would buy into OTA after spending an hour on AVSForum.

Of course after bragging about all the problems they have solved and
money they have spent they always end by saying it was worth it.

But it isn't for most folks who would rather wait for cable than go
through the pain.

If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
AVSFORUM.

How do I know? Because I talk to reporters and when they ask me to back
up by assertions about the problems with 8-VSB I send them to AVSFORUM!!

AVSFORUM is my best source.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 8:14:24 PM

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

Yes, he does. He wants to beam DTV advertisements to you no matter
where you are. Mobile DTV receivers are all he cares about. This
way, when you're on the bus or metro, you'll get annoying ads just
like you already get on TV. A real win for people everywhere!

So, Bob doesn't really care about you sitting at home watching HDTV.
But he does care about the fact that he's already invested a lot of
money in these COFDM mobile DTV receivers. He's upset that the FCC
has already given the precious spectrum away for the HDTV
transmissions I'm enjoying right now for free over-the-air with my
receiver box and $20 antenna.


Jason wrote:
> Hey Bob, answer honestly.
>
> Do you stand to profit financially if COFDM becomes the standard?
>
>
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
>>writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
>>I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
>>of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
>>further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
>>and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
>>such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
>>saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>>
>>Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the
>
> plunge.
>
>>And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
>>by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
>>doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
>>
>>"He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
>>which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
>>as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
>>performance issues too."
>>
>>The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
>>that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
>>suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
>>far better modulation system exist.
>>
>>In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
>>than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
>>issues too."
>>
>>If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
>>should not have a "but" in it. For example....
>>
>>"Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
>>has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
>>in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.
>>
>>Then Ken H goes further.
>>
>>"The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
>>"LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
>>reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
>>technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
>>broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""
>>
>>This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
>>listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
>>disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
>>not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
>>better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
>>broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
>>to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
>>done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
>>again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.
>>
>>After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
>>prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
>>it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
>>acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 8:27:40 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
> AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
> York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
> AVSFORUM.
>
Well could it be that those 9 out of 10 people are already cable or sat
users? Isn't 85% of America a Cable or Sat sub? I would assume if you
can't afford cable or sat then you aren't buying an HDTV. The better
questions is what percentage of HDTV buyers are already subed to service
that provides HDTV or what percentage will be using an existing device to
view HDTV.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 8:27:41 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:27:40 GMT, "Gomer Jones" <Iamnot@liberty.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
>news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
>> AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
>> York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
>> AVSFORUM.
>>
>Well could it be that those 9 out of 10 people are already cable or sat
>users? Isn't 85% of America a Cable or Sat sub? I would assume if you
>can't afford cable or sat then you aren't buying an HDTV. The better
>questions is what percentage of HDTV buyers are already subed to service
>that provides HDTV or what percentage will be using an existing device to
>view HDTV.
>

Booby.. Also ignores the fact that all HDTV SAT receivers have
built in OTA/8VSB receivers. Using OTA is the only way the SAT co's
can provide local HDTV programming.

Plus.. Virtually ALL Cable companies use OTA/8VSB receivers too
pull in their local HDTV feeds.

One way or another OTA HDTV is catching on.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 10:26:51 PM

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

Gomer Jones wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
> news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
>>AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
>>York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
>>AVSFORUM.
>>
>
> Well could it be that those 9 out of 10 people are already cable or sat
> users? Isn't 85% of America a Cable or Sat sub? I would assume if you
> can't afford cable or sat then you aren't buying an HDTV. The better
> questions is what percentage of HDTV buyers are already subed to service
> that provides HDTV or what percentage will be using an existing device to
> view HDTV.
>
>

As of the first quarter of 2004 23% of cable customers were getting
digital cable. 68% of US households had cable so 15.64% of cable
customers are digital. Satellite has 12.5% of the market and they are
all digital so we have a total of 28.14% of households that have digital
TV. Of all cable and satellite companies how many have made deals to
carry, can handle and have the room to handle or have decided to handle
HDTV?

I think that anyone who spends an hour investigating HDTV will discover
that in most cases OTA is necessary if you want to get the most or in
many cases a little or anything in HDTV.

Most people buying HDTV do so with the understanding that for now they
will make do with DVD watching on it or take whatever cable and
satellite offer if anything and if not they will just wait.

Most of them have made the decision NOT to buy OTA receiver because it
is not worth it. Part of the information they use in making this
decision is price, word of mouth, advertising and info they get from
salepersons in TV stores.

There is no advertising for OTA receivers. Salespersons are not that
interested in selling OTA in my experience, the price of receivers in
high for most people and the word of mouth including such stories in the
New York Times is often bad.

If anyone does a Google on the subject they are going to get a lot of
negative info especially if they hit an AVSForum.

Lets emphasize one point again, NO ONE IS ADVERTISING HDTV OTA. Ever ask
yourself why???

You walk into a grocery store in the UK and you will see ads and
displays for DTV along with receivers that cost as little as $40 on sale
and $65 not.

OTA receivers are center stage on web sites for tech items you don't
have to dig for them lke 8-VSB. Until recently the only OTA receiver
offered by WalMart was for $568 combo sat receiver. Now they also offer
the USDTV one for $200.

Of course they plan on making their own receiver obsolete with a new one
that does MPEG4.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 10:48:10 PM

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

Tim Keating wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:27:40 GMT, "Gomer Jones" <Iamnot@liberty.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
>>news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>>If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
>>>AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
>>>York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
>>>AVSFORUM.
>>>
>>
>>Well could it be that those 9 out of 10 people are already cable or sat
>>users? Isn't 85% of America a Cable or Sat sub? I would assume if you
>>can't afford cable or sat then you aren't buying an HDTV. The better
>>questions is what percentage of HDTV buyers are already subed to service
>>that provides HDTV or what percentage will be using an existing device to
>>view HDTV.
>>
>
>
> Booby.. Also ignores the fact that all HDTV SAT receivers have
> built in OTA/8VSB receivers. Using OTA is the only way the SAT co's
> can provide local HDTV programming.
>
> Plus.. Virtually ALL Cable companies use OTA/8VSB receivers too
> pull in their local HDTV feeds.

While the law of must carry specifies that a stations signal must be
received at the headend of a cable company to qualify many broadcasters
use microwave and fiber links to actually deliver their signal day to day.
>
> One way or another OTA HDTV is catching on.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 10:48:11 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:10 GMT, Bob Miller <bob@viacel.com> wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:27:40 GMT, "Gomer Jones" <Iamnot@liberty.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
>>>>AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
>>>>York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
>>>>AVSFORUM.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well could it be that those 9 out of 10 people are already cable or sat
>>>users? Isn't 85% of America a Cable or Sat sub? I would assume if you
>>>can't afford cable or sat then you aren't buying an HDTV. The better
>>>questions is what percentage of HDTV buyers are already subed to service
>>>that provides HDTV or what percentage will be using an existing device to
>>>view HDTV.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Booby.. Also ignores the fact that all HDTV SAT receivers have
>> built in OTA/8VSB receivers. Using OTA is the only way the SAT co's
>> can provide local HDTV programming.
>>
>> Plus.. Virtually ALL Cable companies use OTA/8VSB receivers too
>> pull in their local HDTV feeds.
>
>While the law of must carry specifies that a stations signal must be
>received at the headend of a cable company to qualify many broadcasters
>use microwave and fiber links to actually deliver their signal day to day.

Another one of Bob's fantasies.

A. Bobby's world of distributing HDTV signals

Microwave links in the 20Mb/sec range are very expensive(20K$+
per), hard to get licensed, and are prone to both rain and snow
fading.
Partial T3's rentals are even more expensive. (2K$/mo per link +
milage charges).

Furthermore each station may have to distribute service to
dozens of geographically diverse cable head ends. Multiply the
distribution costs by a factor of ten or twenty per station.

OR

B. Easy low cost method of receiving HDTV signals. .

Receiving the preexisting OTA 8VSB transmission is cheap, easy,
reliable.. (Price of a commercial 8VSB receiver+spares amortized
over it's lifetime..~10$ per month, per channel, per headend) . Note:
Pre-existing mast antenna and coax will probably work just fine.


Summary.

Only Bobby would choose to waste 10K to 20K$ * Per Month* per
Headend , in order to avoid using the obvious, almost zero cost,
$100 Per Month solution.

Bob, you are financially illiterate !

>> One way or another OTA HDTV is catching on.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 11:17:58 PM

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

Jason wrote:

> Hey Bob, answer honestly.
>
> Do you stand to profit financially if COFDM becomes the standard?
>
>
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
>>writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
>>I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
>>of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
>>further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
>>and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
>>such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
>>saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>>
>>Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the
>
> plunge.
>
>>And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
>>by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
>>doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
>>
>>"He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
>>which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
>>as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
>>performance issues too."
>>
>>The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
>>that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
>>suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
>>far better modulation system exist.
>>
>>In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
>>than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
>>issues too."
>>
>>If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
>>should not have a "but" in it. For example....
>>
>>"Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
>>has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
>>in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.
>>
>>Then Ken H goes further.
>>
>>"The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
>>"LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
>>reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
>>technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
>>broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""
>>
>>This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
>>listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
>>disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
>>not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
>>better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
>>broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
>>to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
>>done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
>>again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.
>>
>>After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
>>prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
>>it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
>>acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.
>
>
>

Have answered that many times. If COFDM was allowed for use by
broadcasters in the US my business plan would go poof. I would have
none. The last thing I want is for COFDM to be allowed in the US for use
by the 1600 full power DTV stations. That is honestly as a businessman.
As an American consumer who has witnessed first hand what is and has
been done because of my business interest I am appalled at the way
consumers are being treated.

The consumer was no part of the process to pick 8-VSB. The FCC and
Congress talk about putting the consumer first while they in fact put
him last. WAY LAST!

What I want to see happen as a businessman is for better 8-VSB receivers
to lock in broadcasters with 8-VSB while we can use other spectrum for
mobile services. It looks like that may happen.

Better receivers would also cause the DTV transition to speed up and
free up spectrum we and others have paid for so that we could actually
use it.

Some concept right? We who have paid in good faith and want to deliver
innovative new services that customers will buy NOW have to wait while
broadcasters who were GIVEN SPECTRUM FOR FREE and use every device in
their political book to DELAY the DTV transition including the choice of
8-VSB itself, squat on the spectrum and BY INSTRUCTION FROM CONGRESS
WAIT FOR AUCTION WINNERS TO BRIBE THEM TO REMOVE THEMSELVES from
spectrum they don't own.

Let say it another way. Congress specifically called for squatting
broadcasters to deal with auction winners to make deals to cease analog
broadcasting early, during the transition, and to move to the core,
channels below 51.

Now as an bidder you have to take into account this DEAL you have to
make with the squatting broadcaster. Your bid is only part of what you
have to pay for the spectrum. Since you have no idea ahead of time what
the broadcaster wants the winning bid will be low.

Whatever you the spectrum bidder pay the broadcaster who supposedly is a
tenate of the US on our (the citizen's spectrum) to move is money that
should have gone to the US treasury as part of your bid.

As Senator McCain said when broadcasters were given this spectrum for
free "They are the most powerful lobby I have encountered in
Washington". And he called it a $70 billion givaway.

Now it is even worse. They now want to get paid for LEAVING.

Wouldn't you like to have power like that? Tell your landlord that it is
all well and good that he has not been charging you any rent for years
but now that it is time to leave you require the new tenant to pay you,
the old tenant to leave.

That is how twisted Washington DC is. Your elected officials who are on
your salary are so in league with those who pay for their elections that
the above seems perfectly reasonable to them.

McCain is one of the only ones who still sees through this fog of money
and says we should just kick out the broadcasters, should never have
given the spectrum to them in the first place, should have just
auctioned it off.

For most in Washington that like COFDM just makes too much common sense.
June 24, 2004 11:17:59 PM

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

So that is a long-winded no?

"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
news:GNFCc.12509$w07.11876@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jason wrote:
>
> > Hey Bob, answer honestly.
> >
> > Do you stand to profit financially if COFDM becomes the standard?
> >
> >
> >
> > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
> >>writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
> >
> >>I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
> >>of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
> >>further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
> >>and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
> >>such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
> >>saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
> >>
> >>Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the
> >
> > plunge.
> >
> >>And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
> >>by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
> >>doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
> >>
> >>"He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
> >>which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
> >>as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
> >>performance issues too."
> >>
> >>The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
> >>that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
> >>suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
> >>far better modulation system exist.
> >>
> >>In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
> >>than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
> >>issues too."
> >>
> >>If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
> >>should not have a "but" in it. For example....
> >>
> >>"Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
> >>has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
> >>in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.
> >>
> >>Then Ken H goes further.
> >>
> >>"The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
> >>"LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
> >>reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
> >>technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
> >>broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""
> >>
> >>This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
> >>listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
> >>disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
> >>not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
> >>better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
> >>broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
> >>to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
> >>done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
> >>again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.
> >>
> >>After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
> >>prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
> >>it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
> >>acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Have answered that many times. If COFDM was allowed for use by
> broadcasters in the US my business plan would go poof. I would have
> none. The last thing I want is for COFDM to be allowed in the US for use
> by the 1600 full power DTV stations. That is honestly as a businessman.
> As an American consumer who has witnessed first hand what is and has
> been done because of my business interest I am appalled at the way
> consumers are being treated.
>
> The consumer was no part of the process to pick 8-VSB. The FCC and
> Congress talk about putting the consumer first while they in fact put
> him last. WAY LAST!
>
> What I want to see happen as a businessman is for better 8-VSB receivers
> to lock in broadcasters with 8-VSB while we can use other spectrum for
> mobile services. It looks like that may happen.
>
> Better receivers would also cause the DTV transition to speed up and
> free up spectrum we and others have paid for so that we could actually
> use it.
>
> Some concept right? We who have paid in good faith and want to deliver
> innovative new services that customers will buy NOW have to wait while
> broadcasters who were GIVEN SPECTRUM FOR FREE and use every device in
> their political book to DELAY the DTV transition including the choice of
> 8-VSB itself, squat on the spectrum and BY INSTRUCTION FROM CONGRESS
> WAIT FOR AUCTION WINNERS TO BRIBE THEM TO REMOVE THEMSELVES from
> spectrum they don't own.
>
> Let say it another way. Congress specifically called for squatting
> broadcasters to deal with auction winners to make deals to cease analog
> broadcasting early, during the transition, and to move to the core,
> channels below 51.
>
> Now as an bidder you have to take into account this DEAL you have to
> make with the squatting broadcaster. Your bid is only part of what you
> have to pay for the spectrum. Since you have no idea ahead of time what
> the broadcaster wants the winning bid will be low.
>
> Whatever you the spectrum bidder pay the broadcaster who supposedly is a
> tenate of the US on our (the citizen's spectrum) to move is money that
> should have gone to the US treasury as part of your bid.
>
> As Senator McCain said when broadcasters were given this spectrum for
> free "They are the most powerful lobby I have encountered in
> Washington". And he called it a $70 billion givaway.
>
> Now it is even worse. They now want to get paid for LEAVING.
>
> Wouldn't you like to have power like that? Tell your landlord that it is
> all well and good that he has not been charging you any rent for years
> but now that it is time to leave you require the new tenant to pay you,
> the old tenant to leave.
>
> That is how twisted Washington DC is. Your elected officials who are on
> your salary are so in league with those who pay for their elections that
> the above seems perfectly reasonable to them.
>
> McCain is one of the only ones who still sees through this fog of money
> and says we should just kick out the broadcasters, should never have
> given the spectrum to them in the first place, should have just
> auctioned it off.
>
> For most in Washington that like COFDM just makes too much common sense.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 11:18:00 PM

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

Bob apparently cannot answer simple yes/no questions.

You ask him what color the sky is and he'll go on about how Congress
is trying to fool people into interpreting colors differently or
something.


Jason wrote:

> So that is a long-winded no?
>
> "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
> news:GNFCc.12509$w07.11876@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey Bob, answer honestly.
>>>
>>>Do you stand to profit financially if COFDM becomes the standard?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
>>>>writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
>>>>I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
>>>>of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
>>>>further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
>>>>and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
>>>>such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
>>>>saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>>>>
>>>>Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the
>>>
>>>plunge.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
>>>>by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
>>>>doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
>>>>
>>>>"He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
>>>>which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
>>>>as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
>>>>performance issues too."
>>>>
>>>>The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
>>>>that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
>>>>suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
>>>>far better modulation system exist.
>>>>
>>>>In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
>>>>than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
>>>>issues too."
>>>>
>>>>If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
>>>>should not have a "but" in it. For example....
>>>>
>>>>"Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
>>>>has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
>>>>in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.
>>>>
>>>>Then Ken H goes further.
>>>>
>>>>"The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
>>>>"LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
>>>>reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
>>>>technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
>>>>broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""
>>>>
>>>>This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
>>>>listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
>>>>disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
>>>>not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
>>>>better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
>>>>broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
>>>>to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
>>>>done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
>>>>again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.
>>>>
>>>>After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
>>>>prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
>>>>it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
>>>>acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Have answered that many times. If COFDM was allowed for use by
>>broadcasters in the US my business plan would go poof. I would have
>>none. The last thing I want is for COFDM to be allowed in the US for use
>>by the 1600 full power DTV stations. That is honestly as a businessman.
>>As an American consumer who has witnessed first hand what is and has
>>been done because of my business interest I am appalled at the way
>>consumers are being treated.
>>
>>The consumer was no part of the process to pick 8-VSB. The FCC and
>>Congress talk about putting the consumer first while they in fact put
>>him last. WAY LAST!
>>
>>What I want to see happen as a businessman is for better 8-VSB receivers
>>to lock in broadcasters with 8-VSB while we can use other spectrum for
>>mobile services. It looks like that may happen.
>>
>>Better receivers would also cause the DTV transition to speed up and
>>free up spectrum we and others have paid for so that we could actually
>>use it.
>>
>>Some concept right? We who have paid in good faith and want to deliver
>>innovative new services that customers will buy NOW have to wait while
>>broadcasters who were GIVEN SPECTRUM FOR FREE and use every device in
>>their political book to DELAY the DTV transition including the choice of
>>8-VSB itself, squat on the spectrum and BY INSTRUCTION FROM CONGRESS
>>WAIT FOR AUCTION WINNERS TO BRIBE THEM TO REMOVE THEMSELVES from
>>spectrum they don't own.
>>
>>Let say it another way. Congress specifically called for squatting
>>broadcasters to deal with auction winners to make deals to cease analog
>>broadcasting early, during the transition, and to move to the core,
>>channels below 51.
>>
>>Now as an bidder you have to take into account this DEAL you have to
>>make with the squatting broadcaster. Your bid is only part of what you
>>have to pay for the spectrum. Since you have no idea ahead of time what
>>the broadcaster wants the winning bid will be low.
>>
>>Whatever you the spectrum bidder pay the broadcaster who supposedly is a
>>tenate of the US on our (the citizen's spectrum) to move is money that
>>should have gone to the US treasury as part of your bid.
>>
>>As Senator McCain said when broadcasters were given this spectrum for
>>free "They are the most powerful lobby I have encountered in
>>Washington". And he called it a $70 billion givaway.
>>
>>Now it is even worse. They now want to get paid for LEAVING.
>>
>>Wouldn't you like to have power like that? Tell your landlord that it is
>>all well and good that he has not been charging you any rent for years
>>but now that it is time to leave you require the new tenant to pay you,
>>the old tenant to leave.
>>
>>That is how twisted Washington DC is. Your elected officials who are on
>>your salary are so in league with those who pay for their elections that
>> the above seems perfectly reasonable to them.
>>
>>McCain is one of the only ones who still sees through this fog of money
>>and says we should just kick out the broadcasters, should never have
>>given the spectrum to them in the first place, should have just
>>auctioned it off.
>>
>>For most in Washington that like COFDM just makes too much common sense.
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 12:50:56 AM

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

>I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
>of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
>further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
>and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
>such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
>saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.

Your B.S. BOB has gone to new levels. To say that AVS does NOT promote HD is
the most absurd, irresponsible comment I've ever seen you make.....and trust me
BOB, you've made TONS.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 12:52:41 AM

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

>What Bob Miller doesn't mention that these "visitors" are his sock
>puppets, ever since he was banned from AVSForum.
>
>He even reportedly once "coached" his daughter to post an anti-8VSB
>screed! Talk about creepy! "Daddy good. Sleep now."
>
>-- Mark --

Creepy is a nice way to put it Mark. I prefer to use the word LIAR, which
certainly accurately describes BOB.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 12:54:08 AM

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

>Bob is still trying to create a problem in the first place. Everyone
>I know gets HDTV OTA just fine. I get NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, UPN, WB all
>over the air perfectly, and I'm in a small valley over 16 miles from
>the towers.

No Mike, you see all those people don't really exist in BOB's "mind". The man
has some serious issues. He doesn't even yet understand that his time and come
and gone in this country. What a loser.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 12:57:55 AM

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

>You can tell me all you want that 8-VSB has no problems. I know the
>reality because I deal with it everyday.

Sure BOOBY, you deal with it in Mark Schubin's apartment. You see folks, Mark
Schubin apparently can not get 8VSB reception in his Manhattan apartment and
this totally negates the countless posts right here of perfect 8VSB reception.
This is the "BOB logic" that we all know and love. The man is just beyond
belief!

Oh and BOOBY, nowhere in the article does it say "STAY AWAY FROM OTA". What Ken
simply said was that it was not as easy a proposition as getting cable. One
must erect an antenna. Why is that so damn hard for you to understand. Ken was
entirely ACCURATE and up front by saying people should not expect it to be as
simple as hooking to cable.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 12:59:20 AM

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

>Booby.. Also ignores the fact that all HDTV SAT receivers have
>built in OTA/8VSB receivers.

And I call BOOBY on this each and every time. What can you expect from a liar
and a fraud. BOOBY stands alone as now his Sinclair buddies have deserted him
and given their SEAL OF APPROVAL to 8VSB. Yes BOOBY, you stand alone.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 1:07:00 AM

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

>So that is a long-winded no?
>

Nah, it's a long winded LIE. BOB has had all his financial eggs in one COFDM
basket. To say otherwise indicates what a B.S. artist he is.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 2:17:49 AM

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

Bob Miller (bob@viacel.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
> AN OTA RECEIVER

The answer, of course, is that if you want a new TV larger than about 32"
and live in the US, you buy an HD-ready set because you can't get anything
else unless you go bargain basement.

So, it is quite true that many people buy HD-ready sets with absolutely no
intention of feeding them *any* sort of HD signal in the next year. This
doesn't mean they are specifically rejecting ATSC OTA HD...just that they
don't care about HD at all...today.

--
Jeff Rife | "There was a guy that was killed just like this
SPAM bait: | over in Jersey."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | "Yeah, but I figure, 'What the hell,
uce@ftc.gov | that's Jersey.'"
| -- "Highlander"
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 3:49:56 AM

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

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, beernuts wrote:
> Why do folks react to you so negatively? I mean I get the overall you say
> format A rules, they say format B rules, or whatever, but for folks like me,
> new to the group, the whole thing seems pretty funny and weird, too.

The best answer that can be given is "stick around for a while and you'll
understand."

He is still fighting a battle that was settled by the government years
ago. He picked the losing side. It's like Vietnamese refugees who still
fly the South Vietnamese flag after 29 years, or ding-dongs who still fly
the Confederate battle flag after 129 years. It can be simultaneously an
amusing oddity of crackpots and something very harmful.

The important thing to understand is that he doesn't care about HDTV. He
wants to be in the business of unicasting video advertising to public
transportation. The aforementioned lost battle dashed his dreams, and
apparently cost him a good deal of money.

Most people who bet on the wrong horse presently pick themselves up and
move on. His erstwhile allies have already done this. He simply can't
let go.

He is now on his own, lonely, campaign to spread fear, uncertainty, and
doubt ("FUD") as his means of getting revenge. Since he didn't win, he
wanted to keep HDTV from winning as well.

There really is no hope left for him of keeping HDTV from winning, so he's
now reduced to trying to delay it (and thus increase the expense of the
HDTV conversion) as long as possible.

This is what was behind his nonsense that Congress was "investigating"
whether to reconsider the outcome of the battle.

This is what is behind his increasingly frantic calls to "don't buy HDTV
equipment now, it will all become useless soon." It's not based upon
reality, but rather upon what he hopes to accomplish.

Even though what he says is all nonsense and lies, there is usually a
half-truth buried inside. Remember that even if a fact or a statement may
be authentic, when taken out of context it's possible to turn day into
night and night into day.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 4:24:20 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
> writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
>

Why do folks react to you so negatively? I mean I get the overall you
say format A rules, they say format B rules, or whatever, but for folks
like me, new to the group, the whole thing seems pretty funny and weird,
too.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 5:25:00 AM

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

In article <UgKCc.4391$L8.929@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
beernuts <beerwithnutsNOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
>> writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>>
>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>>
>>
>
> Why do folks react to you so negatively? I mean I get the overall you
> say format A rules, they say format B rules, or whatever, but for folks
> like me, new to the group, the whole thing seems pretty funny and weird,
> too.
>
All too often, the claims from the extremists are too strongly and
emotionally refuted. Extremism (or extreme dishonesty) does elicit
a strong response -- whether or not either side is right or wrong.

The same kind of polarization (but with much more vehemnce) occurs
in the abortion debate. In that case, the argument almost degrades
to advocating abortion over birth vs. no-abortion, even for health
or incest reasons.

This same polarization happens in the OTA 8VSB vs. COFDM debate, but
thankfully these are relatively much less important. However, it is
definitely important to refute the dishonest claims from certain
individuals who have ABSOLUTELY no positive interest in HDTV.

John
June 25, 2004 12:50:33 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:31:32 -0500, "Jason" <none@none.com> wrote:

>Hey Bob, answer honestly.
>
>Do you stand to profit financially if COFDM becomes the standard?
>

Here's the funny part, Bob doesn't have a viable business plan. I've
already pointed out holes in his ideas that are big enough to drive a
train through, but he refuses to response to the obvious glaring
problems that I've pointed out.

I've repeatedly pointed out the other glaring problems with everything
he's presented as being issues today, but all Bob can do is continue
to parrot the line he developed so long ago. "8VSB bad,COFDM good".

Sounds like the plot for a bad movie. The problem is that Bob
completely ignores factual evidence and logican presentation and
continues to lie, obfuscate, and troll trying to convince people that
he's right. His busines plan is a complete failure, he can't accept
it, and the only way he can possibly feel good about himself is to
make other people feel bad about decisions that they are making. If
he makes even one person doubt their decsion then he giddy as a
schoolgirl. Problem is, nobody is listening to him anymore.

The other problem is that Bob can't learn. He must have some form of
learning disability since we've tried to teach him so much but he
refuses to accept the truth of the world. Sad, sad case.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
June 25, 2004 1:11:58 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:26:51 GMT, Bob Miller <bob@viacel.com> wrote:

>
>As of the first quarter of 2004 23% of cable customers were getting
>digital cable. 68% of US households had cable so 15.64% of cable
>customers are digital. Satellite has 12.5% of the market and they are
>all digital so we have a total of 28.14% of households that have digital
>TV. Of all cable and satellite companies how many have made deals to
>carry, can handle and have the room to handle or have decided to handle
>HDTV?

Where's the proof to back up your facts here, Bobbie? Let's see, from
what I understand a large part of the cable companies have converted
their systems to digital, and those digital signals are available to
customers. Now, whether those customers avail themselves of the
signal or not is a whole different matter. And gee, wasn't this the
argument that you were trying to use not to long ago to convince us
that we were close to the penetration limit?

>
>I think that anyone who spends an hour investigating HDTV will discover
>that in most cases OTA is necessary if you want to get the most or in
>many cases a little or anything in HDTV.

I'm not sure I'm reading this statement correctly. Are you, Bob
Miller, the one who's claiming the 8VSB implementation in this country
is such a failure, saying that customers have to use OTA to get the
most out of their new HDTV systems?

Quick someone, call the ambulance, I think I'm having a heart attack.

>
>Most people buying HDTV do so with the understanding that for now they
>will make do with DVD watching on it or take whatever cable and
>satellite offer if anything and if not they will just wait.
>
>Most of them have made the decision NOT to buy OTA receiver because it
>is not worth it. Part of the information they use in making this
>decision is price, word of mouth, advertising and info they get from
>salepersons in TV stores.

And where is your proof that most have made the decision not to buy
OTA? Have you polled every buyer of an HDTV system to find out they
have decided to forgo OTA? Was there a questionnaire in the box with
my HDTV that I missed where I was supposed to indicate that I wasn't
going to use OTA? God Bobbie, you're so disingenious. trying to
pass something off as fact, when the truth is that most people don't
even think about OTA at the time of purchase simply becuase there's
been no education about OTA. All it takes is a simple question, and
then most people that I talk to realize that they need some way to
connect an antenna so they can get OTA.

And guess what? Most people find they will get and OTA receiver when
they upgrade their satellite system, or they are going with cable, or
there's one built into the TV. They don't have to make a conscious
decisiont to implement OTA.

>
>There is no advertising for OTA receivers. Salespersons are not that
>interested in selling OTA in my experience, the price of receivers in
>high for most people and the word of mouth including such stories in the
>New York Times is often bad.
>
>If anyone does a Google on the subject they are going to get a lot of
>negative info especially if they hit an AVSForum.
>
>Lets emphasize one point again, NO ONE IS ADVERTISING HDTV OTA. Ever ask
>yourself why???

Yes I have, and the simple answer is that they don't feel it's
necessary. Because such a large percentage of the country is cable or
satellite, there's no percentage in advertising a FREE service. Who's
going to pay for that advertising? Gee, Bobbie, I think you missed a
bet there, perhaps you should have been out contracting for ads and
seeling those OTA boxes, since nobody's doing it.

>
>You walk into a grocery store in the UK and you will see ads and
>displays for DTV along with receivers that cost as little as $40 on sale
>and $65 not.

And they're not HDTV, as we keep telling you and you refuse to learn.
What happens in the UK, France, Korea, China, or Outer Mongolia has no
bearing on what happens in the country, except in your feeble brain.

>
>OTA receivers are center stage on web sites for tech items you don't
>have to dig for them lke 8-VSB. Until recently the only OTA receiver
>offered by WalMart was for $568 combo sat receiver. Now they also offer
>the USDTV one for $200.
>
>Of course they plan on making their own receiver obsolete with a new one
>that does MPEG4.

Well, that's great, you get and OTA receiver with some propriatary
junk added on to that works in a few markets at the moment. Sure, I
want to jump out and buy that. But again, you ignore my
qualifications about USDTV and your predictions on how it will impact
the US market. Of course, all your predictions about the US market
have really missed the boat, so why should we worry about it. Of
course, your predictions about the overseas markets have been really
good, following on the footsteps of every article that tells about
what's happening and how it's going to happen. But then, instead of
citing sources, you simply spout it as your prediction hoping that
nobody will will discover the articles you've been reading. Of
course, most of us don't care, because what happens outside the US
affects only those outside the US, and they usually know what you're
spouting off about anyway.

Besides, I keep telling you, if COFDM is so important you shouldn't be
spending you're time telling us about it. You should be talking to
Congress and the FCC convincing them why they need to mandate a
change.







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 4:56:48 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
news:L1FCc.16303$Wr.15524@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Gomer Jones wrote:
>
> > "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
> > news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >>If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
> >>AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
> >>York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
> >>AVSFORUM.
> >>
> >
> > Well could it be that those 9 out of 10 people are already cable or sat
> > users? Isn't 85% of America a Cable or Sat sub? I would assume if you
> > can't afford cable or sat then you aren't buying an HDTV. The better
> > questions is what percentage of HDTV buyers are already subed to
service
> > that provides HDTV or what percentage will be using an existing device
to
> > view HDTV.
> >
> >
>
> As of the first quarter of 2004 23% of cable customers were getting
> digital cable. 68% of US households had cable so 15.64% of cable
> customers are digital. Satellite has 12.5% of the market and they are
> all digital so we have a total of 28.14% of households that have digital
> TV. Of all cable and satellite companies how many have made deals to
> carry, can handle and have the room to handle or have decided to handle
> HDTV?
>

I don't know how this is relevant when I was limited my discussion to people
who are buying HiDef TVs? I would assume that HiDef set viewers are those
with digital and/or Sat already.



> I think that anyone who spends an hour investigating HDTV will discover
> that in most cases OTA is necessary if you want to get the most or in
> many cases a little or anything in HDTV.


Huh? I get ABC, NBC, PBS, CBS, INHD, INHD2, ESPNHD, Starz, HBO, Cinemax,
Showtime and on July 1 Discovery. -- Don't think I could get that OTA.

> Most people buying HDTV do so with the understanding that for now they
> will make do with DVD watching on it or take whatever cable and
> satellite offer if anything and if not they will just wait.

Wrong... in my local BB, CC and other AV Stores the sales folks say people
are buying set because they get this selection off of cable.


> Most of them have made the decision NOT to buy OTA receiver because it
> is not worth it. Part of the information they use in making this
> decision is price, word of mouth, advertising and info they get from
> salepersons in TV stores.

Wrong .... They aren't because its easier to have the cable co give the and
HD STB or HDPVR STB .... the others are Sat users.


> There is no advertising for OTA receivers. Salespersons are not that
> interested in selling OTA in my experience, the price of receivers in
> high for most people and the word of mouth including such stories in the
> New York Times is often bad.

Huh? -- you are twisting the store around to suit your purposes, so what it
goes to prove is that folks are more comfortable with their cableco
providing the STB. My cableco advertises constantly the availability of HD
STBs and in fact there was a backlog for sometime because of the demand.



> If anyone does a Google on the subject they are going to get a lot of
> negative info especially if they hit an AVSForum.
>
> Lets emphasize one point again, NO ONE IS ADVERTISING HDTV OTA. Ever ask
> yourself why???
>
Because the cableco and sat guys do it .... and because its economic -- 85%
of America could get it if they chose to call their SAT or CableCo -- OTA
isn't viable -- in a change adverse society why switch to something people
thought was "old" technology.


> You walk into a grocery store in the UK and you will see ads and
> displays for DTV along with receivers that cost as little as $40 on sale
> and $65 not.

OK SD OTA for $40 ... fine but its not HDTV -- Now here is the probablem, in
the US it would defeat the convenience factor ... all my grandma has to do
is plug the cable into the back of the TV and bam she has TV. No STB -- no
limited selection (don't give me the number of stations you can watch in the
UK ... its the US). The last thing she would want (and I would want for
her) is to put a STB in the family room, the kitchen, her bedroom and her
sewing room ... all of a sudden it adds up.



>
> OTA receivers are center stage on web sites for tech items you don't
> have to dig for them lke 8-VSB. Until recently the only OTA receiver
> offered by WalMart was for $568 combo sat receiver. Now they also offer
> the USDTV one for $200.

> Of course they plan on making their own receiver obsolete with a new one
> that does MPEG4.
June 25, 2004 5:49:36 PM

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

Isn't it too late now anyway. The standard is adopted -- we have to use it
and live with it. Don't know why this guy keeps screaming.


"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
> writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>
>
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
> I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
> of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
> further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
> and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
> such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
> saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>
> Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the
plunge.
>
> And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
> by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
> doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
>
> "He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
> which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
> as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
> performance issues too."
>
> The end statement "but it has various performance issues too." suggest
> that it follows a statement saying COFDM is superior. A Freudian slip I
> suppose. Just shows that somewhere in Ken the knowledge that COFDM is a
> far better modulation system exist.
>
> In detail, the sentence should read "Overall it works somewhat better
> than our own modulation standard (8-VSB), but it has various performance
> issues too."
>
> If the first statement is left as Ken wrote it then the second statement
> should not have a "but" in it. For example....
>
> "Overall it works about as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), it
> has various performance issues too." The "but" being removed. The "but"
> in implies that the first statement should suggest superiority.
>
> Then Ken H goes further.
>
> "The key quote regarding the modulation standard is this:
> "LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
> reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
> technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
> broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power.""
>
> This is a major sigh of relief from Nat Ostroff who since 1999 has to
> listen to vilifications on his true observation that 8-VSB was a
> disaster. It in no way suggest that Nat or any other broadcaster would
> not switch in a heartbeat to COFDM today if they could. In fact as the
> better receivers for 8-VSB make OTA viable again in the US and
> broadcasters pay attention to the possibility of actually broadcasting
> to customers over the air as a viable business, something they have not
> done in a long time, I predict that increased interest will be shown
> again in COFDM or other modern modulations.. How is that for a twist.
>
> After all it was Nat Ostroff's interest in being an OTA broadcaster that
> prompted his anxiety over 8-VSB in the first place over 5 years ago and
> it was other broadcasters keen disinterest in OTA that allowed them to
> acquiese before pressure from Congress and have 8-VSB foisted upon us.
June 25, 2004 5:50:27 PM

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

Most people use cable for HD now anyway -- so the issue is moot.

"Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many times such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on
> >>> AVSForum from saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
> >
> >
> > Bob is still trying to create a problem in the first place. Everyone I
> > know gets HDTV OTA just fine. I get NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, UPN, WB all
> > over the air perfectly, and I'm in a small valley over 16 miles from the
> > towers.
> >
> > Bob, it's a shame for you that the real world does not match your dream
> > world. The current HDTV OTA method works great! Give it a rest, and
> > stop scaring people away from what could be a great television viewing
> > experience!
>
> I don't know how you missed it but I was not the author of the New York
> Times article. Now was I the source of his material.
>
> AVSForum was the source of his material. The New york times has more
> reach than I do. I post what I see here and a few other places. Those on
> AVSForum and the New York Times have MAJOR influence.
>
> You can tell me all you want that 8-VSB has no problems. I know the
> reality because I deal with it everyday.
>
> You had better tell the New York Times that there is no problem because
> they think there is. And they get their info from, at least in this
> case, AVSForum.
>
> It is no secret all you have to do is go there and read the post every
> day. Problems problems and more problems. They spell it out in detail.
> STAY AWAY FROM OTA!!
>
> You have bad receivers, all kinds of problems with antennas and it goes
> on and on. The basic message at AVSForum is deal with OTA for now with
> all its problems until cable and satellite have more content and then
> switch.
>
> No one not a masocist would buy into OTA after spending an hour on
AVSForum.
>
> Of course after bragging about all the problems they have solved and
> money they have spent they always end by saying it was worth it.
>
> But it isn't for most folks who would rather wait for cable than go
> through the pain.
>
> If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
> AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
> York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
> AVSFORUM.
>
> How do I know? Because I talk to reporters and when they ask me to back
> up by assertions about the problems with 8-VSB I send them to AVSFORUM!!
>
> AVSFORUM is my best source.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 8:26:50 PM

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

The article has some truth to it, mostly it just reads like a long
ramble of a rant. Funny thing is a remember when The Times was a
respect source of information. This article and recent events at that
organzation just confirm what I've been seeing the last few years.

See in-line:

I'll agree that the author of the article

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BesCc.15784$Wr.8339@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously the
> writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>
> I have often said on AVSForum and here that AVSForum would like to think
> of itself as fostering HDTV and early on OTA HDTV but nothing could be
> further from the truth. This article is a good example of what lurkers
> and one time visitors to AVSForum take away from the visit. Many times
> such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on AVSForum from
> saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>
> Just normal post there must have deterred thousands from taking the plunge.
>
> And erroneous information like the post in the thread on AVSForum above
> by the moderator Ken about COFDM only bing about as good as 8-VSB
> doesn't help. He even counters his own argument by saying...
>
> "He is referring to an alternative modulation standard called COFDM,
> which is part of the DVB-T digital TV standard. Overall it works about
> as well as our modulation standard (8VSB), but it has various
> performance issues too."
>

.... Ok, we've been though this before. COFDM isn't happening here in
the US. You can scream all you want and point out how various authors
have aided in derailing your cause, but the plan of truth of it is the
cost is just unrealistic. We have the install base of 8-VSB tunners in
various integrated HDTVs, Dish Network and DirectTV boxes (to my
knowledge all Dish Network and DirectTV HD boxes pull in local
stations via 8VSB).

Bob, you continue to try and promote COFDM in spite of Sinclar's
recent statements. I think at this point you're trying to find some
validity to your cause that you've been so passionate about for the
past four years, but maybe we should say it a bit louder.. CODFM WILL
NEVER BE AM FCC ENDORCED MODULATION STANDARD IN TH US. Ok, it will not
happen, now more than ever you should know. So let's say there is some
truth to your COFDM vs 8VSB arguments, they hold no merit now.. NO ONE
IS LISTENING. Sinclar backed down, battles over Bob.

Maybe that's still sinking in, regardless your comments here continue
to do more damage than good.

The authors comments further (regarding DirectTV) prove that he
doesn't understand the tid-bit about 8VSBs aid to satellite providers,
but again where's a technology editor to be found at the NYT? They
have no right to publish this sort of material and it makes them look
bad, but oh well.

Who do you think you're going to convince? Ok, at what point will you
give up this cause and realize what an incredible waste of your time
it is. No one wants to break compatiblity except you. You seem to
think what works in other countries would work fine here without
consideration for the unique geographical issues we face as well as
the cost to abandon the existing 8VSB infrastructure we've laid. For
example, in a recent exhange we had, you pointed back to the cost of
the COFDM modulators, but you refuse to factor in the equipment
already sold and the net negative impact on this new technology,
regardless of what you may think.. A switch to COFDM would be like
starting over and that would kill the industry.

I'd like to think you a somewhat intelligent guy, so one can only
conclude that killing the industry is your goal. Either that, or that
you stand to gain considerable from the adoption of COFDM.

The other possibility is that you just aren't that bright, I think you
have something to gain from the adoption of COFDM.

Answer this one question for me. Do you honestly think your post will
help push COFDM in as a standard in the US? If so explain the chain of
events you see that will lead to that happenign. Just hypothetical. At
least before you had Sinclar as your champion, they've backed down,
there is no chance of this. Why do you continue? That's not an honest
question, please answer.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 10:43:51 PM

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

eric wrote:
> Most people use cable for HD now anyway -- so the issue is moot.

True but the issue is not moot. OTA is making a comeback in other
countries and it will here to. OTA will kill both satellite and cable IMHO.

I don't think they have a prayer's change to compete with OTA except in
the political arena where they have been very successful in keeping OTA
down so far.
>
> "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
> news:eSCCc.12303$w07.11448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Many times such a visitor will post a remark thanking others on
>>>>>AVSForum from saving them from buying into OTA HDTV.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bob is still trying to create a problem in the first place. Everyone I
>>>know gets HDTV OTA just fine. I get NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, UPN, WB all
>>>over the air perfectly, and I'm in a small valley over 16 miles from the
>>>towers.
>>>
>>>Bob, it's a shame for you that the real world does not match your dream
>>>world. The current HDTV OTA method works great! Give it a rest, and
>>>stop scaring people away from what could be a great television viewing
>>>experience!
>>
>>I don't know how you missed it but I was not the author of the New York
>>Times article. Now was I the source of his material.
>>
>>AVSForum was the source of his material. The New york times has more
>>reach than I do. I post what I see here and a few other places. Those on
>>AVSForum and the New York Times have MAJOR influence.
>>
>>You can tell me all you want that 8-VSB has no problems. I know the
>>reality because I deal with it everyday.
>>
>>You had better tell the New York Times that there is no problem because
>>they think there is. And they get their info from, at least in this
>>case, AVSForum.
>>
>>It is no secret all you have to do is go there and read the post every
>>day. Problems problems and more problems. They spell it out in detail.
>>STAY AWAY FROM OTA!!
>>
>>You have bad receivers, all kinds of problems with antennas and it goes
>>on and on. The basic message at AVSForum is deal with OTA for now with
>>all its problems until cable and satellite have more content and then
>>switch.
>>
>>No one not a masocist would buy into OTA after spending an hour on
>
> AVSForum.
>
>>Of course after bragging about all the problems they have solved and
>>money they have spent they always end by saying it was worth it.
>>
>>But it isn't for most folks who would rather wait for cable than go
>>through the pain.
>>
>>If you want to know why 9 out of ten people who buy an HDTV DO NOT BUY
>>AN OTA RECEIVER your answer is in news reports like todays in the New
>>York Times and that article like many many before it was spawned by
>>AVSFORUM.
>>
>>How do I know? Because I talk to reporters and when they ask me to back
>>up by assertions about the problems with 8-VSB I send them to AVSFORUM!!
>>
>>AVSFORUM is my best source.
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 12:55:26 AM

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

>o, Bob doesn't really care about you sitting at home watching HDTV.
>But he does care about the fact that he's already invested a lot of
>money in these COFDM mobile DTV receivers. He's upset that the FCC
>has already given the precious spectrum away for the HDTV
>transmissions I'm enjoying right now for free over-the-air with my
>receiver box and $20 antenna.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 1:05:52 AM

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

>Why do folks react to you so negatively? I mean I get the overall you
>say format A rules, they say format B rules, or whatever, but for folks
>like me, new to the group, the whole thing seems pretty funny and weird,
>too.

The answer is very simple. People here do not like a liar. BOB is a liar. He
has been proven to be a liar on countless occasions. It's one thing to express
an HONEST opinion, BOB does nothing of the kind. He tries to scare people away
from OTA HD with tall tales that bear no resemblence to reality. He ignores
post after post after post of successes with OTA HD where these same people get
miserable NTSC reception. He will continually bring up the failure to receive
OTA HD in one Mark Schubin's Manhattan apartment. He then extrapolates that ONE
experience to make this a universal phenomenon. THIS is why we despise this
man. We do not tolerate liars. The AVS forum is a MODERATED group where BOB is
no longer allowed to post due to his incessant lies. Of course he has tried to
post under many aliases, but gets caught most of the time.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 4:28:54 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> eric wrote:
>
>> Most people use cable for HD now anyway -- so the issue is moot.
>
>
> True but the issue is not moot. OTA is making a comeback in other
> countries and it will here to. OTA will kill both satellite and cable IMHO.
>
> I don't think they have a prayer's change to compete with OTA except in
> the political arena where they have been very successful in keeping OTA
> down so far.


So you assume that people all over the country will want to give up the
choice of 100+ channels that you can find on satalite or cable for a
meger selection of local OTA stations? Which in my town is a total of
8, and only 4 of which broadcast an HD signal.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't see me giving up ESPN in
favor of the local stations high school sports highlights.

ALV
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 4:48:30 AM

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

Andrew Venor wrote:

>
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> eric wrote:
>>
>>> Most people use cable for HD now anyway -- so the issue is moot.
>>
>>
>>
>> True but the issue is not moot. OTA is making a comeback in other
>> countries and it will here to. OTA will kill both satellite and cable
>> IMHO.
>>
>> I don't think they have a prayer's change to compete with OTA except
>> in the political arena where they have been very successful in keeping
>> OTA down so far.
>
>
>
> So you assume that people all over the country will want to give up the
> choice of 100+ channels that you can find on satalite or cable for a
> meger selection of local OTA stations? Which in my town is a total of
> 8, and only 4 of which broadcast an HD signal.
>
> I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't see me giving up ESPN in
> favor of the local stations high school sports highlights.
>
> ALV
>
You have 8 channels now. But any market has the same RF capability of
supporting channels 2-51 and with digital a lot of those are viable in
every market. Adjacent channels were taboo in NTSC and there are
harmonic channels that are taboo also. Not so in digital

You also have LPTV and translator stations that are now used for
rebroadcast of Full Power stations but with COFDM those channels are not
needed for rebroadcast and according to some 8-VSB people we should be
able to do the same thing with 8-VSB. (on channel repeaters)

So conservatively you could have 20 channels in your market each of
which can do at least 15/10/5 MPEG4 SD/ED/HD channels if there was no
FCC law that required an MPEG2 SD channel. That works out to 300/200/100
programs in your market delivered OTA.

It doesn't have to be all local channels. You could have ESPN, HBO or
any content that can be delivered by cable or satellite.

USDTV is doing just that. They have an OTA subscription service and
latter this year their WalMart receiver will change over to a MPEG4
receiver. This is not a big secret or something I am making up.

From the point they start selling that receiver everything changes and
it is only a matter of the numbers. How successful are they? How many
broadcasters sign up with them or with Emmis and how quickly? Does it
cause a political storm in DC or a warm welcome from Congress that is
hungry for any sign of success in the digital transition.

The other thing to worry about is the reaction of early adopters as
their current receivers go obsolete.

There are other options on the horizon that I cannot talk about that
blows all this talk out of the water simple because it will not fall
under the normal controls of the FCC. They have a big suprise coming I
think.

Having a decent 5th generation 8-VSB receiver changes everything.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 6:14:57 AM

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

>There are other options on the horizon that I cannot talk about that
>blows all this talk out of the water simple because it will not fall
>under the normal controls of the FCC. They have a big suprise coming I
>think.

Endless endless dribble. His "predictions" NEVER come true. BOB is indeed the
conveyor of HD fear, lies, embellishment and pure out and out bullshit.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 7:22:40 PM

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

Andrew Venor wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> eric wrote:
>>
>>> Most people use cable for HD now anyway -- so the issue is moot.
>>
>>
>> True but the issue is not moot. OTA is making a comeback in other
>> countries and it will here to. OTA will kill both satellite and
>> cable IMHO.
>>
>> I don't think they have a prayer's change to compete with OTA except
>> in the political arena where they have been very successful in
>> keeping OTA down so far.
>
>
> So you assume that people all over the country will want to give up
> the choice of 100+ channels that you can find on satalite or cable
> for a meger selection of local OTA stations? Which in my town is a
> total of 8, and only 4 of which broadcast an HD signal.
>
> I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't see me giving up ESPN in
> favor of the local stations high school sports highlights.
>
> ALV

Some may opt for it for their HD. I have cable HD, but till use my OTA for
local.

When I was growing up, we had 3 stations until there was an independent (WOR
channel 9 in NYC). I was also the remote control......
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:17:47 AM

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

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:bh0rq1-gbr.ln1@developers.dsbox.com...
> dream world. The current HDTV OTA method works great! Give it a
> rest, and stop scaring people away from what could be a great
> television viewing experience!

From the article:
___
"Digital converter boxes are getting better," said Ken Holsgrove, an HDTV
consultant and an AVS Forum moderator. But for customers who expect current
over-the-air digital TV to work like regular TV, he had some advice: "I'd
steer clear of it. The technology will not support their expectations."
___

I agree with Ken Holsgrove, the AVS Forum moderator. I cannot recommend OTA
HDTV reception for ordinary, naive consumers. My own sample size of
two--myself and a friend--indicates that HDTV reception is indeed
problematic. It requires geeky tweaking and results in getting most
channels most of the time. In other words, it is nowhere near as simple as
OTA analog TV, which itself requires enough effort and compromises to be
unacceptable to most consumers (who prefer cable or satellite).

My sample size is small because no one else I know will even consider OTA
HDTV, despite my months of evangelization in its favor (to other geeks).
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 7:04:44 AM

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

beernuts wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> This article in the New York Times posted on AVSForum and obviously
>> the writer took a lot of inspiration from AVSForum in writing the piece.
>>
>> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=39fefe0...
>>
>>
>
> Why do folks react to you so negatively? I mean I get the overall you
> say format A rules, they say format B rules, or whatever, but for folks
> like me, new to the group, the whole thing seems pretty funny and weird,
> too.

I think I understand now.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 9:39:59 PM

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

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

> "Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
> news:bh0rq1-gbr.ln1@developers.dsbox.com...
>
>>dream world. The current HDTV OTA method works great! Give it a
>>rest, and stop scaring people away from what could be a great
>>television viewing experience!
>
>
> From the article:
> ___
> "Digital converter boxes are getting better," said Ken Holsgrove, an HDTV
> consultant and an AVS Forum moderator. But for customers who expect current
> over-the-air digital TV to work like regular TV, he had some advice: "I'd
> steer clear of it. The technology will not support their expectations."
> ___
>
> I agree with Ken Holsgrove, the AVS Forum moderator. I cannot recommend OTA
> HDTV reception for ordinary, naive consumers. My own sample size of
> two--myself and a friend--indicates that HDTV reception is indeed
> problematic. It requires geeky tweaking and results in getting most
> channels most of the time. In other words, it is nowhere near as simple as
> OTA analog TV, which itself requires enough effort and compromises to be
> unacceptable to most consumers (who prefer cable or satellite).
>
> My sample size is small because no one else I know will even consider OTA
> HDTV, despite my months of evangelization in its favor (to other geeks).
>
>

By your reasoning, I should conclude that the male of the human species
is disappearing because I have two daughters, four neices, a grand
daughter and nine grand-nieces but no sons, no grandsons, four nephews
and one grand nephew. Thats 16 females and five males.

In statistics an insufficient sample size makes any conclusions
statistically insignificant. The fact is that more than 50% of live
human births are male.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 10:52:55 PM

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

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in
news:vunDc.1244$AD4.410@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

> I agree with Ken Holsgrove, the AVS Forum moderator. I cannot
> recommend OTA HDTV reception for ordinary, naive consumers. My own
> sample size of two--myself and a friend--indicates that HDTV reception
> is indeed problematic. It requires geeky tweaking and results in
> getting most channels most of the time. In other words, it is nowhere
> near as simple as OTA analog TV, which itself requires enough effort
> and compromises to be unacceptable to most consumers (who prefer cable
> or satellite).
>

And my sample size of 1 (myself) indicates that there's no problem in
receiving OTA HDTV. Hook the receiver to the TV and stereo, hook the
antenna cable to the receiver, turn on the TV, stereo, and receiver, tune
to a OTA HD channel, and turn the antenna rotator to point towards the
station. Voila' - a beautiful HD display on the TV and Dolby Digital 2.0 or
5.1 coming from the stereo. And I'm getting good HD and SD reception from
stations that I get poor OTA analog reception from. And my house is in a
shallow valley.

Now, I will admit that I have to carefully aim the antenna to pick up the
OTA digital channels from the stations that are 85 miles away, but then I
can't get the analog signal from those same stations at all.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 1:45:48 AM

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

>In statistics an insufficient sample size makes any conclusions
>statistically insignificant. The fact is that more than 50% of live
>human births are male.
>
>Matthew

And unfortunately one of those was BOB.
!