Sony HDTV over the air tuner and Obsolescence?

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

I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
their signals, or should I wait a few years?
30 answers Last reply
More about sony hdtv tuner obsolescence
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, CGott wrote:
    > I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
    > receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
    > anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
    > it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
    > their signals, or should I wait a few years?

    Assuming that you intend to use an STB (set top box, that is a separate
    HDTV tuner) you are fine. The TV probably has both component and DVI, DVI
    being slightly preferable.

    If you can wait a short while until the FCC mandate kicks in, you'll find
    TVs with a built-in HDTV tuner showing up on the market for much less (and
    the TVs without the tuner being dumped at fire-sale prices).

    "Broadcasters scrambling their signals" is a problem that only exists in
    Bob Miller's fantasies. There is something about copy-restriction, but
    that's only going to affect digital copying, and the final jury isn't out
    on that.

    If you have a TV with an HDTV tuner, you'll be able to watch your favorite
    network prime time shows in HDTV for free. That's not going away.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    That connection has nothing to do with OTA signals. Nor does it have
    anything to do with scrambling. It is there for copy protection for
    Hollywood which is afraid you're going to copy their movies.


    "CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:70fae150.0406241820.442fc1e8@posting.google.com...
    > I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
    > receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
    > anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
    > it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
    > their signals, or should I wait a few years?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    CGott wrote:
    >
    > I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
    > receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
    > anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
    > it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
    > their signals, or should I wait a few years?

    I use a Sony 34HS510 HDTV today for both OTA component and

    Cable Box (SA3250HD) DVI HD programs... Both work swell!!

    As far as OTA HD Broadcasters scrambling... No way......

    and yes, I do fear Cable 'new' Scrambling with my DVI....

    but I will cross that bridge when &... IF DVI 'goes bad'...

    I enjoy HDTV today... and that's counts.....

    The movie industry may not be my friend?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > The FCC won't tell you, broadcasters won't tell you, the manufacturers of
    > 8-VSB receivers won't tell you that current receivers may become obsolete IN
    > MANY POSSIBLE ways.
    >
    > And then there are those who think that they are promoting HDTV by ignoring
    > reality, by denying the risk, because they work for one of the above
    > entities.

    Doesn't it get hot wearing your tin-foil hat all the time?

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200.

    In case you haven't discovered, those receivers do HD; and their big
    selling point at Wal-Mart is free HD. USDTV's pay SD programming is an
    attempt to get viewers, no longer needing the cable company to give them
    their local channels, to fire the cable company entirely.

    It's a clever idea. Whether it's successful remains to be seen. The
    important thing is that USDTV's entire business model depends upon the
    widespread availability of free HD OTA.

    It is not in USDTV's interest to see HD OTA go away in the way that BOB
    alleges. If that were to happen, USDTV's entire selling point over cable
    goes away.

    > Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur.

    All of the above also applies to Emmis. Without widespread and free HD
    OTA, the business model collapses. Cable and satellite will kill them.

    Everywhere in the world (yes, even with BOB's precious COFDM) OTA requires
    more consumer level maintenance of reception capability than cable or
    satellite. There is a very real cost to this. Cable and satellite both
    offer "install it and forget about it", and consumers will pay a premium
    for that.

    In order to undercut cable and satellite, USDTV/Emmis must not only be
    cheaper, but offer a benefit not found on cable and satellite. That
    benefit is free HD. The key is that HD is free *both* to the consumer
    *and* to USDTV.

    It's a clever means of bottom-feeding. Let the broadcasters give away the
    HD content; and on the cheap provide CNN, Fox News, Cartoon Network, USA
    Network, and the other popular SD channel while undercutting the cable
    company.

    But, like all bottom-feeders, it depends upon the food chain higher up.
    The more free HD is available to all, the more crumbs that come down for
    USDTV to gobble.

    Thus, BOB's attempts at spreading anti-HD FUD attack USDTV too. Which, if
    you think about it, makes sense. USDTV represents a competitor for the
    bandwidth that BOB wants to use to put tampon advertisements on city
    buses.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Mark Crispin wrote:

    > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, CGott wrote:
    >
    >> I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
    >> receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
    >> anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
    >> it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
    >> their signals, or should I wait a few years?
    >
    >
    > Assuming that you intend to use an STB (set top box, that is a separate
    > HDTV tuner) you are fine. The TV probably has both component and DVI,
    > DVI being slightly preferable.
    >
    > If you can wait a short while until the FCC mandate kicks in, you'll
    > find TVs with a built-in HDTV tuner showing up on the market for much
    > less (and the TVs without the tuner being dumped at fire-sale prices).
    >
    > "Broadcasters scrambling their signals" is a problem that only exists in
    > Bob Miller's fantasies. There is something about copy-restriction, but
    > that's only going to affect digital copying, and the final jury isn't
    > out on that.
    >
    > If you have a TV with an HDTV tuner, you'll be able to watch your
    > favorite network prime time shows in HDTV for free. That's not going away.
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >

    Your first worry is not about broadcasters scrambling their signals
    which they would do if they offer a subscription service.

    Your first worry is that broadcasters will segment their signal. That is
    they will satisfy the requirement of the FCC that they broadcast AT
    LEAST ONE NTSC PROGRAM WITH MPEG2 IN THE FREE AND CLEAR and they they
    will use the rest of their bandwidth to deliver more programming using a
    codec such as WM9, MPEG4 or VP6 which is 2 to 3 times more efficient.

    This programming could be free, part free or all subscription but even
    if it is ALL FREE, that is NO SCRAMBLING, your current 8-VSB OTA
    receiver will still NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING BUT THE NTSC QUALITY PROGRAM.
    NTSC=SD.

    Mark can say this will not happen but he is doing you no favor. He is
    intent on you taking the risk. He does not want you to have all the
    information that you need to make a purchase decision.

    If he did he would tell you himself that what I say will happen IS
    ALREADY HAPPENING.

    USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200. IN a couple of months
    they will start selling receivers that do both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Where
    ever they operate they make deals with broadcasters to use some stations
    to do exactly what I suggest above. Except that they have no plans that
    I know of to do any HD in their MPEG4 bandwidth. Broadcasters have
    invested in USDTV.

    Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur. They
    have formed an organization of broadcasters to do the same thing but on
    steroids. Emmis has already signed up over 400 stations out of the total
    of 1600. That after only a few months. They expect ALL broadcasters to
    join. They talk of buying USDTV.

    Hey a few hundred $ for a receiver that works now and may work for some
    time before what I suggest happens (or it may not happen) is no big
    deal. Buy it but don't say you have not been warned.

    The FCC won't tell you, broadcasters won't tell you, the manufacturers
    of 8-VSB receivers won't tell you that current receivers may become
    obsolete IN MANY POSSIBLE ways.

    And then there are those who think that they are promoting HDTV by
    ignoring reality, by denying the risk, because they work for one of the
    above entities.

    And then there are potentially those who would consciously deceive new
    or would be new HD buyers about the risk because they want as many as
    possible in the same boat with them. The more in the less chance it will
    sink seems to be the reasoning.

    Good reasoning if the numbers in the boat were actually very high. They
    are not and the powers that be will ignore them as this change occurs.

    I would not buy an 8-VSB receiver until they have 5th generation Zenith
    capability and can handle advanced codecs like MPEG4, WM9 or VP6. The
    capabilities of the 5th generation receivers were promised in 1999.

    Actually much more was promised or more correctly they said that they
    had the capability of mobile and indoor ease of reception in 1999. The
    only reason I believe that 5th generation receivers are better is
    because of trusted friends who have tested them and told me. No mobile
    however.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob Miller <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message news:<QLUCc.13222$w07.12724@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > Mark Crispin wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, CGott wrote:
    > > >
    > >
    > > Assuming that you intend to use an STB (set top box, that is a separate
    > > HDTV tuner) you are fine. The TV probably has both component and DVI,
    > > DVI being slightly preferable.
    > >
    > > If you can wait a short while until the FCC mandate kicks in, you'll
    > > find TVs with a built-in HDTV tuner showing up on the market for much
    > > less (and the TVs without the tuner being dumped at fire-sale prices).
    > >
    > > "Broadcasters scrambling their signals" is a problem that only exists in
    > > Bob Miller's fantasies. There is something about copy-restriction, but
    > > that's only going to affect digital copying, and the final jury isn't
    > > out on that.
    > >
    > > If you have a TV with an HDTV tuner, you'll be able to watch your
    > > favorite network prime time shows in HDTV for free. That's not going away.
    > >
    > > -- Mark --
    > >
    >
    > Your first worry is that broadcasters will segment their signal. That is
    > they will satisfy the requirement of the FCC that they broadcast AT
    > LEAST ONE NTSC PROGRAM WITH MPEG2 IN THE FREE AND CLEAR and they they
    > will use the rest of their bandwidth to deliver more programming using a
    > codec such as WM9, MPEG4 or VP6 which is 2 to 3 times more efficient.
    >
    > This programming could be free, part free or all subscription but even
    > if it is ALL FREE, that is NO SCRAMBLING, your current 8-VSB OTA
    > receiver will still NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING BUT THE NTSC QUALITY PROGRAM.
    > NTSC=SD.
    >
    >
    > If he did he would tell you himself that what I say will happen IS
    > ALREADY HAPPENING.
    >
    > USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200. IN a couple of months
    > they will start selling receivers that do both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Where
    > ever they operate they make deals with broadcasters to use some stations
    > to do exactly what I suggest above. Except that they have no plans that
    > I know of to do any HD in their MPEG4 bandwidth. Broadcasters have
    > invested in USDTV.
    >
    > Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur. They
    > have formed an organization of broadcasters to do the same thing but on
    > steroids. Emmis has already signed up over 400 stations out of the total
    > of 1600. That after only a few months. They expect ALL broadcasters to
    > join. They talk of buying USDTV.
    >
    > Hey a few hundred $ for a receiver that works now and may work for some
    > time before what I suggest happens (or it may not happen) is no big
    > deal. Buy it but don't say you have not been warned.
    >
    > The FCC won't tell you, broadcasters won't tell you, the manufacturers
    > of 8-VSB receivers won't tell you that current receivers may become
    > obsolete IN MANY POSSIBLE ways.
    >
    > And then there are those who think that they are promoting HDTV by
    > ignoring reality, by denying the risk, because they work for one of the
    > above entities.
    >
    > And then there are potentially those who would consciously deceive new
    > or would be new HD buyers about the risk because they want as many as
    > possible in the same boat with them. The more in the less chance it will
    > sink seems to be the reasoning.
    >
    > Good reasoning if the numbers in the boat were actually very high. They
    > are not and the powers that be will ignore them as this change occurs.
    >
    > I would not buy an 8-VSB receiver until they have 5th generation Zenith
    > capability and can handle advanced codecs like MPEG4, WM9 or VP6. The
    > capabilities of the 5th generation receivers were promised in 1999.
    >
    > Actually much more was promised or more correctly they said that they
    > had the capability of mobile and indoor ease of reception in 1999. The
    > only reason I believe that 5th generation receivers are better is
    > because of trusted friends who have tested them and told me. No mobile
    > however.
    When you talk about receivers, are you talking about a separate set
    top receiver or an HDTV capable television like the Sony KV34HS510.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
    news:qo_Cc.734$lh4.116@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Gomer Jones wrote:
    >
    > > So what? Its a pay alternative to Cable or Sat with limited selections.
    > > Are you infereing that I don't go this route I won't be able to watch
    > > ABC/ABC HD on cable? Highly unlikely ... This is just an alternative to
    > > cable or sat ... hopefully this type of packaging and competition will
    lead
    > > to ala carte pricing/selection on cable.
    >
    > Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
    > possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
    > pricing and selection on cable and satellite.

    So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
    better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So here
    we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.

    > As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
    > cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
    > has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.
    >
    > My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.

    Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
    adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
    suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon

    > And while I still think it is a travesty and political hack job visited
    > on the US public, I do think that the new OTA 5th generation receievers
    > could make Emmis or USDTV viable. In fact there are other VIABLE
    > possibilities in the offing that are even bigger than Emmis or USCTV
    > that become viable with the 5th gen receivers.


    > IMO cable and satellite will see far more competition from new OTA
    > offering both 8-VSB and COFDM in the next few years than ANYTHING that
    > is now happening in Europe.

    So we will let the market decide.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Mark Crispin wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >> USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200.
    >
    >
    > In case you haven't discovered, those receivers do HD; and their big
    > selling point at Wal-Mart is free HD. USDTV's pay SD programming is an
    > attempt to get viewers, no longer needing the cable company to give them
    > their local channels, to fire the cable company entirely.

    Yes they do HDTV in MPEG2 and the new receivers that USDTV will market
    in August will do HDTV in MPEG4. The MPEG2 HDTV is free OTA DTV but the
    MPEG4 can be free or subscription based. As USDTV or Emmis bring all
    broadcasters on board the only programming left on MPEG2 will be ONE SD
    program.
    >
    > It's a clever idea. Whether it's successful remains to be seen. The
    > important thing is that USDTV's entire business model depends upon the
    > widespread availability of free HD OTA.

    I don't think so. The more successful they are the less they depend on
    the MPEG2 SD part of the broadcast. They can deliver HD free or via
    subscription on the MPEG4 side.
    >
    > It is not in USDTV's interest to see HD OTA go away in the way that BOB
    > alleges. If that were to happen, USDTV's entire selling point over
    > cable goes away.

    The more spectrum that USDTV can capture and use in any market with the
    2 to 3 times more efficeint WM9 codec the more they can compete with
    cable. USDTV's entire selling point is the amount of HD, ED, SD and data
    they can deliver in MPEG4. Whatever is being broadcast to satisfy the
    FCC MPEG2 SD requirement is totally inconsequential.
    >
    >> Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur.
    >
    >
    > All of the above also applies to Emmis. Without widespread and free HD
    > OTA, the business model collapses. Cable and satellite will kill them.

    They could kill cable and satellite. IF they had 20 broadcast channels
    in a market like NYC they can deliver at least 10 SD or 3 HD programs
    with MPEG4 in the spectrum not used by the ONE SD MPEG2 SD program. That
    would total 200 SD or 60 HD channels or some mix of the two. With PVR
    capability in the receiver they can more than compete with cable and
    satellite.
    >
    > Everywhere in the world (yes, even with BOB's precious COFDM) OTA
    > requires more consumer level maintenance of reception capability than
    > cable or satellite. There is a very real cost to this. Cable and
    > satellite both offer "install it and forget about it", and consumers
    > will pay a premium for that.

    Well while this is true with current 8-VSB receivers it is EMPHATICALLY
    NOT TRUE of COFDM and hopefully not true of 5th generation 8-VSB
    receivers. COFDM and we beleive 5th gen 8-VSB offers a MUCH lower
    maintenance cost than cable or satellite. Install it and forget it is
    what COFDM is all about.

    Satellite is more like install it and pray that is doesn't rain and
    cable as I have experienced it is more call they and stay on hold for
    most of the day for problems that occur all to regularly.
    >
    > In order to undercut cable and satellite, USDTV/Emmis must not only be
    > cheaper, but offer a benefit not found on cable and satellite. That
    > benefit is free HD. The key is that HD is free *both* to the consumer
    > *and* to USDTV.

    At first USDTV must be cheaper and it can be. Its plant cost far less
    and maintenance is minor compared to cable. Its benefits can include no
    lost signal due to rain ala satellite, free programming including HD
    delivered on the MPEG4 side, higher bit rate SD or even ED programming
    and lower cost.

    Down the road a bit OTA does not have to be cheaper. At the same price I
    believe OTA wins out.
    >
    > It's a clever means of bottom-feeding. Let the broadcasters give away
    > the HD content; and on the cheap provide CNN, Fox News, Cartoon Network,
    > USA Network, and the other popular SD channel while undercutting the
    > cable company.
    >
    > But, like all bottom-feeders, it depends upon the food chain higher up.
    > The more free HD is available to all, the more crumbs that come down for
    > USDTV to gobble.
    >
    > Thus, BOB's attempts at spreading anti-HD FUD attack USDTV too. Which,
    > if you think about it, makes sense. USDTV represents a competitor for
    > the bandwidth that BOB wants to use to put tampon advertisements on city
    > buses.

    No the USDTV model carried to its logical end is not a bottom feeder it
    is the rebirth of OTA and the end of cable and satellite in any form
    that we now recognize them in if they exist at all.

    Bob Miller
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    >>Gomer Jones wrote:

    >>
    >>Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
    >>possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
    >>pricing and selection on cable and satellite.
    >
    >
    > So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
    > better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So here
    > we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.
    >
    >
    >>As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
    >>cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
    >>has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.
    >>
    >>My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.
    >
    >
    > Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
    > adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
    > suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon

    If the battle is over we won. Hard to understand with my arguments here
    but my BUSINESS MODEL REQUIRES that broadcasters are STUCK with a non
    mobile 8-VSB while we can use COFDM on other spectrum for mobile services.

    The better 5th generation 8-VSB receivers so LOCK IN 8-VSB that this is
    a great day. Understand that if current broadcasters could offer a
    mobile receiver why would anyone want to compete with them? Why would
    anyone start a new business using spectrum they had to pay for to
    compete with broadcasters who got their spectrum for free and have most
    of the content? It would be crazy. If they cannot compete then that is a
    different story. They can't do mobile with 8-VSB or if they try I would
    love to compete with them using COFDM.
    >
    >
    >>And while I still think it is a travesty and political hack job visited
    >>on the US public, I do think that the new OTA 5th generation receievers
    >>could make Emmis or USDTV viable. In fact there are other VIABLE
    >>possibilities in the offing that are even bigger than Emmis or USCTV
    >>that become viable with the 5th gen receivers.
    >
    >
    >
    >>IMO cable and satellite will see far more competition from new OTA
    >>offering both 8-VSB and COFDM in the next few years than ANYTHING that
    >>is now happening in Europe.
    >
    >
    > So we will let the market decide.
    >

    If only we could let the market decide. As it is many decisions that
    should be market driven are decided by who has the most money
    politically in DC.

    And at the moment this is more true in the US than in many other
    countries. We try to export our morality and have laws against our
    companies taking or giving bribes overseas for business purposes while
    here at home our government is more and more run by outright bribery
    that is reported to us on TV every night and we accept it.

    Just listen to responses right here to the affect "they picked a
    modulation already so nothing can ever be done about it". YOu don't hear
    that in S. Korea where broadcasters refuse to go on the air with 8-VSB 6
    years after is was chosen.

    The British tried to put a tax, the first tax of any kind, on the
    American Colonialist. These were loyal British subjects. The tax was 4%
    on a tea most favored by the colonist. The British sent a ship loaded
    with this tea at half price into Boston Harbor. A steal, a bargain and
    the Bostonian's threw it into the sea and then killed 300 or so of the
    soldiers who came to restore order.

    No such bloodshed today we would say "what are you going to do, nothing
    can be done" and then drink the tea.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
    news:34%Cc.778$lh4.729@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > >>Gomer Jones wrote:
    >
    > >>
    > >>Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
    > >>possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
    > >>pricing and selection on cable and satellite.
    > >
    > >
    > > So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
    > > better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So
    here
    > > we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.
    > >
    > >
    > >>As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
    > >>cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
    > >>has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.
    > >>
    > >>My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.
    > >
    > >
    > > Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
    > > adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
    > > suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon
    >
    > If the battle is over we won. Hard to understand with my arguments here
    > but my BUSINESS MODEL REQUIRES that broadcasters are STUCK with a non
    > mobile 8-VSB while we can use COFDM on other spectrum for mobile services.
    >
    > The better 5th generation 8-VSB receivers so LOCK IN 8-VSB that this is
    > a great day. Understand that if current broadcasters could offer a
    > mobile receiver why would anyone want to compete with them? Why would
    > anyone start a new business using spectrum they had to pay for to
    > compete with broadcasters who got their spectrum for free and have most
    > of the content? It would be crazy. If they cannot compete then that is a
    > different story. They can't do mobile with 8-VSB or if they try I would
    > love to compete with them using COFDM.


    You have totally lost me here ... So why are you so pissed? You said you
    won? Broadcast your mobile data services on other spectrum and let us watch
    HDTV.

    > >
    > >
    > > So we will let the market decide.
    > >
    >
    > If only we could let the market decide. As it is many decisions that
    > should be market driven are decided by who has the most money
    > politically in DC.
    >
    > And at the moment this is more true in the US than in many other
    > countries. We try to export our morality and have laws against our
    > companies taking or giving bribes overseas for business purposes while
    > here at home our government is more and more run by outright bribery
    > that is reported to us on TV every night and we accept it.
    >
    > Just listen to responses right here to the affect "they picked a
    > modulation already so nothing can ever be done about it". YOu don't hear
    > that in S. Korea where broadcasters refuse to go on the air with 8-VSB 6
    > years after is was chosen.
    >
    > The British tried to put a tax, the first tax of any kind, on the
    > American Colonialist. These were loyal British subjects. The tax was 4%
    > on a tea most favored by the colonist. The British sent a ship loaded
    > with this tea at half price into Boston Harbor. A steal, a bargain and
    > the Bostonian's threw it into the sea and then killed 300 or so of the
    > soldiers who came to restore order.
    >
    > No such bloodshed today we would say "what are you going to do, nothing
    > can be done" and then drink the tea.


    I guess you are angry at the government for not listening to you? Well get
    in line.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    >Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
    >adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
    >suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon

    Of course the battle is over! Only BOB doesn't know it. Would anyone like to
    inform BOB of the FCC decision? BOB reminds me of the guy that is found on the
    island still fighting the war 20 years after peace is declared. Amazing, it
    really is.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Gomer Jones wrote:

    > "Bob Miller" <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message
    > news:34%Cc.778$lh4.729@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >>>>Gomer Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
    >>>>possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
    >>>>pricing and selection on cable and satellite.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
    >>>better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So
    >
    > here
    >
    >>>we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
    >>>>cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
    >>>>has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.
    >>>>
    >>>>My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
    >>>adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
    >>>suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon
    >>
    >>If the battle is over we won. Hard to understand with my arguments here
    >>but my BUSINESS MODEL REQUIRES that broadcasters are STUCK with a non
    >>mobile 8-VSB while we can use COFDM on other spectrum for mobile services.
    >>
    >>The better 5th generation 8-VSB receivers so LOCK IN 8-VSB that this is
    >>a great day. Understand that if current broadcasters could offer a
    >>mobile receiver why would anyone want to compete with them? Why would
    >>anyone start a new business using spectrum they had to pay for to
    >>compete with broadcasters who got their spectrum for free and have most
    >>of the content? It would be crazy. If they cannot compete then that is a
    >>different story. They can't do mobile with 8-VSB or if they try I would
    >>love to compete with them using COFDM.
    >
    >
    >
    > You have totally lost me here ... So why are you so pissed? You said you
    > won? Broadcast your mobile data services on other spectrum and let us watch
    > HDTV.
    >

    Broadcasters who were given the spectrum for free are still squatting on
    spectrum we bought at auction. They are using their clout in Washington
    as they have done for many decades now to keep this spectrum out of the
    hands of potential competitors.

    While the law, and broadcasters agreed to this when it was passed, said
    the drop dead date for the end of the digital transition is 2006 and the
    FCC now suggest that 2009 MIGHT be possible the broadcasters are still
    thinking no sooner than 2020.

    We won only refers to broadcasters getting stuck with 8-VSB.
    Unfortunatley all US consumers are stuck with 8-VSB also. The better
    8-VSB receivers suggest that the digital transition will now take place
    a little faster is all the good news.

    Again don't expect to watch a lot of free HDTV OTA with your current
    receiver for very long.

    >>>
    >>>So we will let the market decide.
    >>>
    >>
    >>If only we could let the market decide. As it is many decisions that
    >>should be market driven are decided by who has the most money
    >>politically in DC.
    >>
    >>And at the moment this is more true in the US than in many other
    >>countries. We try to export our morality and have laws against our
    >>companies taking or giving bribes overseas for business purposes while
    >>here at home our government is more and more run by outright bribery
    >>that is reported to us on TV every night and we accept it.
    >>
    >>Just listen to responses right here to the affect "they picked a
    >>modulation already so nothing can ever be done about it". YOu don't hear
    >>that in S. Korea where broadcasters refuse to go on the air with 8-VSB 6
    >>years after is was chosen.
    >>
    >>The British tried to put a tax, the first tax of any kind, on the
    >>American Colonialist. These were loyal British subjects. The tax was 4%
    >>on a tea most favored by the colonist. The British sent a ship loaded
    >>with this tea at half price into Boston Harbor. A steal, a bargain and
    >>the Bostonian's threw it into the sea and then killed 300 or so of the
    >>soldiers who came to restore order.
    >>
    >>No such bloodshed today we would say "what are you going to do, nothing
    >>can be done" and then drink the tea.
    >
    >
    >
    > I guess you are angry at the government for not listening to you? Well get
    > in line.
    >

    I think that is the point, we should not be getting in line anymore.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    curtgottler@yahoo.com (CGott) wrote in
    news:70fae150.0406251416.6662d97c@posting.google.com:

    > When you talk about receivers, are you talking about a separate set
    > top receiver or an HDTV capable television like the Sony KV34HS510.
    >

    He's probably talking about both, but it really doesn't matter. Bob's
    stated goal is to talk people out of buying an HD OTA receiver due to his
    own personal vendetta. He tends to ignore folks like myself who report that
    they're getting great reception of OTA HD now and instead wanders off into
    off-topic rants about what other countries are doing with DTV (note the
    lack of the "H") and claims about how local broadcasters are going to
    abandon their current business plans to migrate to some OTA pay TV scheme.

    He sounds sort of reasonable and knowledgable at first read, but if you
    follow any of the links he posts and/or google the subjects he talks about,
    you'll discover that he's taken statements out of context (or maybe made
    'em up) and mostly don't support his claims.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    CGott wrote:
    > Bob Miller <bob@viacel.com> wrote in message news:<QLUCc.13222$w07.12724@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >>Mark Crispin wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, CGott wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Assuming that you intend to use an STB (set top box, that is a separate
    >>>HDTV tuner) you are fine. The TV probably has both component and DVI,
    >>>DVI being slightly preferable.
    >>>
    >>>If you can wait a short while until the FCC mandate kicks in, you'll
    >>>find TVs with a built-in HDTV tuner showing up on the market for much
    >>>less (and the TVs without the tuner being dumped at fire-sale prices).
    >>>
    >>>"Broadcasters scrambling their signals" is a problem that only exists in
    >>>Bob Miller's fantasies. There is something about copy-restriction, but
    >>>that's only going to affect digital copying, and the final jury isn't
    >>>out on that.
    >>>
    >>>If you have a TV with an HDTV tuner, you'll be able to watch your
    >>>favorite network prime time shows in HDTV for free. That's not going away.
    >>>
    >>>-- Mark --
    >>>
    >>
    >>Your first worry is that broadcasters will segment their signal. That is
    >>they will satisfy the requirement of the FCC that they broadcast AT
    >>LEAST ONE NTSC PROGRAM WITH MPEG2 IN THE FREE AND CLEAR and they they
    >>will use the rest of their bandwidth to deliver more programming using a
    >>codec such as WM9, MPEG4 or VP6 which is 2 to 3 times more efficient.
    >>
    >>This programming could be free, part free or all subscription but even
    >>if it is ALL FREE, that is NO SCRAMBLING, your current 8-VSB OTA
    >>receiver will still NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING BUT THE NTSC QUALITY PROGRAM.
    >>NTSC=SD.
    >>
    >>
    >>If he did he would tell you himself that what I say will happen IS
    >>ALREADY HAPPENING.
    >>
    >>USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200. IN a couple of months
    >>they will start selling receivers that do both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Where
    >>ever they operate they make deals with broadcasters to use some stations
    >>to do exactly what I suggest above. Except that they have no plans that
    >>I know of to do any HD in their MPEG4 bandwidth. Broadcasters have
    >>invested in USDTV.
    >>
    >>Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur. They
    >>have formed an organization of broadcasters to do the same thing but on
    >>steroids. Emmis has already signed up over 400 stations out of the total
    >>of 1600. That after only a few months. They expect ALL broadcasters to
    >>join. They talk of buying USDTV.
    >>
    >>Hey a few hundred $ for a receiver that works now and may work for some
    >>time before what I suggest happens (or it may not happen) is no big
    >>deal. Buy it but don't say you have not been warned.
    >>
    >>The FCC won't tell you, broadcasters won't tell you, the manufacturers
    >>of 8-VSB receivers won't tell you that current receivers may become
    >>obsolete IN MANY POSSIBLE ways.
    >>
    >>And then there are those who think that they are promoting HDTV by
    >>ignoring reality, by denying the risk, because they work for one of the
    >>above entities.
    >>
    >>And then there are potentially those who would consciously deceive new
    >>or would be new HD buyers about the risk because they want as many as
    >>possible in the same boat with them. The more in the less chance it will
    >>sink seems to be the reasoning.
    >>
    >>Good reasoning if the numbers in the boat were actually very high. They
    >>are not and the powers that be will ignore them as this change occurs.
    >>
    >>I would not buy an 8-VSB receiver until they have 5th generation Zenith
    >>capability and can handle advanced codecs like MPEG4, WM9 or VP6. The
    >>capabilities of the 5th generation receivers were promised in 1999.
    >>
    >>Actually much more was promised or more correctly they said that they
    >>had the capability of mobile and indoor ease of reception in 1999. The
    >>only reason I believe that 5th generation receivers are better is
    >>because of trusted friends who have tested them and told me. No mobile
    >>however.
    >
    > When you talk about receivers, are you talking about a separate set
    > top receiver or an HDTV capable television like the Sony KV34HS510.

    Both. I definitely would not buy any integrated HDTV set. Buy a monitor
    with NO ATSC or NTSC receiver in it. Hook it up to your cable or
    satellite receiver. RENT don't buy an 8-VSB receiver from your satellite
    or cable company.

    If you buy a OTA receiver just know that if it cannot do MPEG4 it
    probably will become obsolete IMO. If you buy one that is not 5th
    generation make sure you can return it if it has a problem with reception.

    I beleive that any resale of 8-VSB receivers from here on out will go
    like this. What generation is it? Can it handle MPEG4? If not MPEG4/5th
    Gen it will be worthless on the resale market.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob Miller wrote:
    > Michael J. Sherman wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Do not believe anything Bob says. If he had his way nobody would be
    >> watching excellent HDTV broadcasts at all.
    >>
    >
    > Don't have to beleive me call up Emmis 317.266.0100 or USDTV 801-748-2464
    >
    > Emmis, Partners eye buying USDTV
    > http://www.tvweek.com/news/web060304.html#emmis
    >
    > USDTV Moving to WM9
    > http://www.uprez.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=&topic=9
    >
    >
    > NAB: USDTV Chooses Windows Media 9 for Pay-TV
    > http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=business&id=1147
    >
    > With lawmakers closing in on the analog broadcast spectrum like a pack
    > of hungry dogs on a bone, broadcasters are gravitating toward the
    > over-the-air, multichannel pay service proposed by Emmis Chairman Jeff
    > Smulyan at NAB2004.
    > http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2040

    Yeah, I beleive Smilin' Smulyan just as much as I believe you.

    Matthew

    --
    If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Go for it. Everything will be obsolete in the future, so don't get hung up
    on it. In the NEAR future, you should be OK, and any changes in any
    standards will be spread out over time (look how long it is taking just to
    kill off NTSC broadcasting).

    Oh, and don't listen to Bob. He has a bug up his rear about losing the COFDM
    vs. 8VSB battle, and he just can't tolerate the thought of HDTV possibly
    being a success.

    Phil

    "CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:70fae150.0406241820.442fc1e8@posting.google.com...
    > I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
    > receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
    > anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
    > it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
    > their signals, or should I wait a few years?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Real bad advise Phil unless by the near future you mean a year or so.
    Most people want to have a $300 piece of equipment work for at least 5
    years in the TV set area.

    USDTV is going to be selling receivers that do MPEG4 in
    August/September. Their partners in this venture include WalMart (an
    investor) and Hisense, a Chinese TV manufacturer who is trying to break
    into the US market. USDTV is already starting to try to answer the
    question about their own outmoded receivers that are being sold NOW.
    These are the least expensive 8-VSB receivers available and there is a
    real company that is advertising and trying to sell OTA HD and SD.

    This is something quite new, a business whose focus is OTA for their
    survival. Up till now no broadcaster or other company I know of was in
    this position. They actually advertise. And they have the interest of
    all broadcasters. This was the focus of attention at NAB this year...

    http://www.idate.fr/an/qdn/an-04/IF308/index_a.htm
    New business models for digital terrestrial TV

    "Other solutions include consortia of local channels which could go as
    far as purchasing their content from cable operators.

    This type of trend was the focus of lively discussions at the NAB, and
    poses a number of problems: terrestrial TV will have to rely solely on
    its broadcasting capacities, and its future will be largely decided by
    the existence of high quality receivers, but also by consumers’
    willingness to install terrestrial antennae that have long disappeared
    from the rooftops. A possible decision by the FCC to charge for
    frequencies may also play a role here."

    So everybody in the industry is talking about it, 400 of 1600 TV
    stations have already joined a "consortia" with most of the rest
    expected to join (Emmis), we have the biggest retailer and the NO ONE
    company in the US, WalMart, as an investor and already selling the
    lowest priced receiver on the market and we have one of the biggest and
    hungriest Chinese TV manufacturers making and financing those receivers
    and all you can say is DON"T WORRY!

    I think Phil you may be one of those early adopters that want to "HELP"
    newbies join the HDTV club at all cost.

    I think telling the truth and getting it right the first time would go a
    lot further to fostering HDTV and the US would be a lot further along
    with HDTV if that had been the direction Congress, the FCC and early
    adopters had taken.

    If CGott doesn't mind buying a new receiver in a year or two then he can
    go ahead. I think sound advice would be to know the risk that he is taking.

    To me it makes sense to buy a monitor with NO tuner in it at all, NTSC
    or ATSC. Then if you can get a receiver from cable or satellite do that
    on a rental basis. If you must buy some kind of stand alone receiver and
    can wait a month or two buy a USDTV receiver that can handle MPEG4 but
    make sure you can return it if you have a reception problem.

    The best of all (8-VSB) worlds would be to wait for a 5th generation
    receiver that does MPEG4.

    The best of all worlds today would be a COFDM receiver/PVR with
    VP6/WM9/MPEG4 capability IMO and it is coming to the US also.

    BTW Phil I did not lose the COFDM/8-VSB battle the US and all its
    citizens did. We (business wise) won since our business plan depends on
    broadcasters being stuck with 8-VSB or at best (also worst) E-VSB. The
    new improved 8-VSB receivers will cement in 8-VSB in the US and ensure
    that current broadcasters will not be offering a mobile service.

    And I have been an advocate of HDTV from the 1980's. Being pro COFDM is
    being pro HDTV. HDTV OTA has suffered a 5 year and counting DELAY
    because of 8-VSB.

    Bob Miller


    Phil Ross wrote:
    > Go for it. Everything will be obsolete in the future, so don't get hung up
    > on it. In the NEAR future, you should be OK, and any changes in any
    > standards will be spread out over time (look how long it is taking just to
    > kill off NTSC broadcasting).
    >
    > Oh, and don't listen to Bob. He has a bug up his rear about losing the COFDM
    > vs. 8VSB battle, and he just can't tolerate the thought of HDTV possibly
    > being a success.
    >
    > Phil
    >
    > "CGott" <curtgottler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:70fae150.0406241820.442fc1e8@posting.google.com...
    >
    >>I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
    >>receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
    >>anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
    >>it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
    >>their signals, or should I wait a few years?
    >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:WCkDc.1951$lh4.1432
    @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > This is something quite new, a business whose focus is OTA for their
    > survival. Up till now no broadcaster or other company I know of was in
    > this position.

    Now there's a statement that's typical of Bob - twisting stuff around to
    his own means and posting something that sounds fairly reasonable as long
    as you don't think about it or do any research.

    Seems to me that before the proliferation of cable TV, every local
    broadcaster and the national networks were in the position of having to
    focus on OTA for their survival. And in all but the largest markets with
    relatively well to do broadcasters, the local broadcasters still depend on
    OTA - that's how their signal gets to the cable head!
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Jeff Shoaf wrote:

    > Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:WCkDc.1951$lh4.1432
    > @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
    >
    >
    >>This is something quite new, a business whose focus is OTA for their
    >>survival. Up till now no broadcaster or other company I know of was in
    >>this position.
    >
    >
    > Now there's a statement that's typical of Bob - twisting stuff around to
    > his own means and posting something that sounds fairly reasonable as long
    > as you don't think about it or do any research.
    >
    > Seems to me that before the proliferation of cable TV, every local
    > broadcaster and the national networks were in the position of having to
    > focus on OTA for their survival. And in all but the largest markets with
    > relatively well to do broadcasters, the local broadcasters still depend on
    > OTA - that's how their signal gets to the cable head!
    >
    >

    Before cable yes I should have said recently like the last ten or twenty
    years. And making sure the engineer keeps the transmitter going so that
    the signal get to the cable headend so that the broadcaster qualifies
    for must carry has been THE ONLY reason that justified the use of the
    broadcast spectrum for a long time.

    Broadcasters FOCUS has been on maintaining and increasing their MUST
    CARRY rights. USDTV is the FIRST company to FOCUS on OTA to make money
    broadcasting OTA to actual customers with NO other visible means of
    support.

    In recent years UHF applications to the FCC were specifically positioned
    near cable headends to make it easy to get the signal there and with
    little or no concern for the demographics of their actual OTA coverage
    area. Many believe that this is the only reason there much success with
    analog UHF spectrum from the get go.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, numeric wrote:
    > Should there be only one SD program left for free broadcast TV, the citizens,
    > who own the spectrum, will have been ripped off. I know that the FCC rules
    > say that only one SD program of NTSC quality need be broadcast; but, this is
    > not what the public has been expecting. The public expects free OTA HDTV.
    > This even effects satellite and cable viewers. Broadcast TV has consistently
    > held the highest ratings, higher then even cable only programs. Is a popular
    > show like CSI (currently being broadcast in HDTV) going going to be shown in
    > HDTV on cable and only SD OTA because the local CBS affiliate (as an example)
    > has sold their spectrum to USDTV? Or possibly CSI will only be available in
    > HDTV on USDTV and only SD on cable, satellite and OTA. Either way the viewers
    > get screwed.

    All of the above are reasons why it's not going to happen, Bob Miller's
    psychotic rantings notwithstanding. A good rule of thumb is that if you
    take anything that he says, the opposite is true.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > But what if we had gone with COFDM and a better codec back in 2000?

    We would have had a lousy TV system that screws up the picture every time
    some motor fires up, and Bob Miller would have been hung, drawn, and
    quartered for his part in inflicting that abortion upon us.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > A few early adopters are the only ones even paying attention and as time goes
    > by and more HD is on cable and satellite even they show less interest.

    Remember -- take everything that BOB says, and the exact opposite is the
    truth!

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob Miller wrote:
    The MPEG2 HDTV is free OTA DTV but the
    > MPEG4 can be free or subscription based. As USDTV or Emmis bring all
    > broadcasters on board the only programming left on MPEG2 will be ONE SD
    > program.
    >

    Should there be only one SD program left for free broadcast TV, the
    citizens, who own the spectrum, will have been ripped off. I know that
    the FCC rules say that only one SD program of NTSC quality need be
    broadcast; but, this is not what the public has been expecting. The
    public expects free OTA HDTV. This even effects satellite and cable
    viewers. Broadcast TV has consistently held the highest ratings, higher
    then even cable only programs. Is a popular show like CSI (currently
    being broadcast in HDTV) going going to be shown in HDTV on cable and
    only SD OTA because the local CBS affiliate (as an example) has sold
    their spectrum to USDTV? Or possibly CSI will only be available in HDTV
    on USDTV and only SD on cable, satellite and OTA. Either way the viewers
    get screwed. Maybe its time for either the FCC or Congress to mandate an
    HDTV requirement for broadcast TV; a requirement for a full 19.39 mb/s
    HDTV data rate. Lower then this rate results in annoying pixelation;
    haven't yet seen good quality HDTV when there is more then one program
    being simulcast.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    numeric wrote:

    >
    >
    > Bob Miller wrote:
    > The MPEG2 HDTV is free OTA DTV but the
    >
    >> MPEG4 can be free or subscription based. As USDTV or Emmis bring all
    >> broadcasters on board the only programming left on MPEG2 will be ONE
    >> SD program.
    >>
    >
    > Should there be only one SD program left for free broadcast TV, the
    > citizens, who own the spectrum, will have been ripped off. I know that
    > the FCC rules say that only one SD program of NTSC quality need be
    > broadcast; but, this is not what the public has been expecting. The
    > public expects free OTA HDTV. This even effects satellite and cable
    > viewers. Broadcast TV has consistently held the highest ratings, higher
    > then even cable only programs. Is a popular show like CSI (currently
    > being broadcast in HDTV) going going to be shown in HDTV on cable and
    > only SD OTA because the local CBS affiliate (as an example) has sold
    > their spectrum to USDTV? Or possibly CSI will only be available in HDTV
    > on USDTV and only SD on cable, satellite and OTA. Either way the viewers
    > get screwed. Maybe its time for either the FCC or Congress to mandate an
    > HDTV requirement for broadcast TV; a requirement for a full 19.39 mb/s
    > HDTV data rate. Lower then this rate results in annoying pixelation;
    > haven't yet seen good quality HDTV when there is more then one program
    > being simulcast.
    >

    A few early adopters are the only ones even paying attention and as time
    goes by and more HD is on cable and satellite even they show less
    interest. Congress has stated in both Hearings in the House and Senate
    over the last few weeks that they are tired of the digital transition
    and just want to get it over. The last thing they want to hear is any BS
    about HDTV and OTA and they said as much publicly.

    A broadcaster posted on AVSForum that he demonstrated pristine HD to a
    civic group and they all were impressed and then in passing he mentioned
    USDTV. The group was very interested in USDTV, many wanted to sign up on
    the spot and showed no more interest in the HD demo.

    The public is not clamoring for free OTA HDTV. They hardly know what OTA
    TV is anymore. Congress is now figuring that out. They are going to have
    a hearing on Berlin where the digital transition took only 9 months
    because their Government figured out that very few relied on OTA
    anymore. Something less than 5%.

    5%, if we look at the numbers right, is high for the US where those who
    rely on OTA is more like 3 or 4% not the 15% bandied about. Congress has
    also asked for info on that subject. They have a lot of comment request
    ongoing about this subject at the moment. Can you read between the lines???

    HD only requires 19 Mbps if you use MPEG2. If you use WM9, MPEG4 or VP6
    you get higher quality at a much lower bitrate. That is why I was
    arguing for VP4 and COFDM way back in 2000. COFDM is more robust at a
    higher bit rate, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB at 19.34 Mbps and if we had used
    VP4 at the time we would now have the best of all worlds with VP6 and COFDM.

    The BS decibel level and the money pushing it were just too high in DC
    and we got what money bought at the time, MPEG2, 8-VSB and a major delay
    during which the major players, broadcasters, major retailers and the
    CEA members all knew what was going on. Or do you think there was little
    in the way of full power broadcasting on the part of the broadcasters,
    little production of 8-VSB receivers and NO advertising for nothing?

    This was a delay to let 8-VSB get fixed and they probably thought they
    would fix it by now. You have E-VSB coming out and a decent receiver
    from Zenith.

    But what if we had gone with COFDM and a better codec back in 2000? By
    now we would have 50 million receivers in homes both for SD and HD and
    their cost would be peanuts. By this Christmas it would be hard to find
    a TV set that did not have a COFDM receiver built in and without a
    mandate. Most of the media players would also receive mobile DTV not
    just let you save programs to them to take with you.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Jeff Shoaf wrote:
    >> All of the above are reasons why it's not going to happen, Bob Miller's
    >> psychotic rantings notwithstanding. A good rule of thumb is that if you
    >> take anything that he says, the opposite is true.
    > What I don't understand is:
    > If Bob really believes all the FUD he continuously spews, why isn't he
    > spending his time, money, and effort investing in USDTV and the like?

    Remember that Bob Miller is a pathological liar. Whatever he says, the
    exact opposite is true.

    He is not interested in promoting anything, unless it's a impossible cause
    such as COFDM. All he cares about any more is malice and revenge. If he
    seems to promote anything, such as USDTV, it is only for the purpose of
    leaving such a bad taste in people's mouths.

    USDTV has a very clever bottom-feeding business, and we should wish them
    well; the more Wal-Mart boxes they sell, the better. They'll always be on
    the periphery, representing little threat to cable or satellite; and very
    likely most USDTV boxes will never be subscribed to USDTV service.

    By presenting USDTV as being an attack on cable, satellite, and free OTA
    HDTV, Bob Miller hopes to trigger a hostile reaction against USDTV.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Jeff Shoaf wrote:
    > I'll make a deal with you, Bob. My parents get all of their TV reception
    > via OTA. If the majority of the local broadcasters in my area do what
    > you're predicting (broadcast one SDTV signal via free OTA and add a
    > multitude of pay DTV OTA signals) before the FCC mandates the broadcasters
    > drop their analog broadcast, I'll buy my folks a new 45" widescreen TV, a
    > receiver to get those pay OTA signals, and pay for a minimum of one year's
    > subscription to those pay DTV OTA broadcasts. If the majority of the
    > broadcasters in my area don't do what you're predicting and continue to
    > broadcast free OTA HDTV, you can buy them a 45" widescreen with an
    > integrated 8VSB HD OTA tuner.

    Be sure to get BOB to agree to having the funds deposited in escrow.

    I doubt that he'll accept your wager; he knows that he is a liar and
    bullshitter, and consequently will lose.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:BgtDc.15030$w07.223@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > wrote:
    >
    > Blah blah blah COFDM blah blah blah blah blah blah COFDM
    > blah blah COFDM blah blah blah blah blah COFDM blah blah
    > blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    > blah blah blah blah blah COFDM blah blah blah blah blah.

    Get over it BOB.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:Y9nDc.14772$w07.7219
    @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > Before cable yes I should have said recently like the last ten or twenty
    > years. And making sure the engineer keeps the transmitter going so that
    > the signal get to the cable headend so that the broadcaster qualifies
    > for must carry has been THE ONLY reason that justified the use of the
    > broadcast spectrum for a long time.
    >

    I'll make a deal with you, Bob. My parents get all of their TV reception
    via OTA. If the majority of the local broadcasters in my area do what
    you're predicting (broadcast one SDTV signal via free OTA and add a
    multitude of pay DTV OTA signals) before the FCC mandates the broadcasters
    drop their analog broadcast, I'll buy my folks a new 45" widescreen TV, a
    receiver to get those pay OTA signals, and pay for a minimum of one year's
    subscription to those pay DTV OTA broadcasts. If the majority of the
    broadcasters in my area don't do what you're predicting and continue to
    broadcast free OTA HDTV, you can buy them a 45" widescreen with an
    integrated 8VSB HD OTA tuner.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:45:14 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
    wrote:

    >The situation is TRULY "slightly more complicated than that statement
    >indicates". The FCC regulations say nothing about encryption beyond the
    >requirement that ONE SD or 480i program be transmitted in the free and
    >clear or un-encrypted. The broadcaster can broadcast CSI in HD encrypted
    >in the rest of the spectrum after meeting the requirements.
    >
    >In fact it is this highly desirable content that broadcasters might want
    >to encrypt and deliver only in a subscription service if they decide to
    >compete with cable. If Emmis is successful it is just this type of
    >co-operative effort that could offer real competition to cable and
    >satellite. If broadcasters want to capture some of the money that cable
    >now receives for "delivering content" then this is what we will see.

    Bob, do you have a clue about the business structure of OTA
    broadcasters? Apparently not, since the garbage you keep spouting
    goes against the grain of every business model in existence for a
    major market broadcaster.

    OTA stations love cable, since they get paid for cable carrying their
    programs. With the advent of HD programming, the broadcasters are
    even happier because until analog is turned off they get extra from
    the cable companies when they carry the HD content also.

    As I've said repeatedly, and which you continue to ignore, is that
    Ennis and USDTV will be somewhat successful, but not in the mode that
    you're spouting off about. They will get the minor broadcasters in an
    area to sign up since they aren't going to be doing HD, and the
    spectrum can easily be used, but any major broadcaster isn't going to
    go for a deal where they damage their standing with the community,
    which would impact revenues from advertising, which is really where
    they make their money.

    >
    >With better receivers for 8-VSB OTA becomes viable once again.
    >Broadcasters are waking up to the possibilities even asking the FCC to
    >consider the use of SFN's to increase their coverage. Why should they
    >settle for ad revenues which are under attack from TIVO like devices
    >when they can pick up subscription revenue from consumers who have shown
    >that they are willing to pay cable companies every increasing amounts
    >for delivering content.

    Yes, but the broadcasters get revenue from the cable companies, so
    it's a tradeoff anyway. Besides, no broadcaster is that concerned
    about TIVO like devices because it really doesn't impact their market
    share, which is the real basis for ad revenue. The advertisers hate
    it, becuase they know there are a number of people out there that
    aren't watching the commercials, but considering the penetration level
    of all TIVO like devices into the market, broadcasters reallly aren't
    concerned about them. To be honest, in my opinion, it's only a
    matter of time before TIVO and the like are out of business, to be
    replaced by other devices.

    >
    >Broadcasters can deliver content via subscription to now. Why would they
    >give away their best content to cable so that cable can make
    >subscription revenue when they can do it themselves?

    Your lack of knowledge is really showing Bob. Perhaps you should
    learn more about the broadcating industry instead of just COFDM.

    >
    >All of a sudden must carry gets turned on its head. Instead of
    >broadcasters worrying about cable carriage cable worries about being
    >allowed to carry MUST HAVE content. OTA broadcasting reasserts itself as
    >the primary way that people receive TV content.
    >
    >Cable and satellite were created out of the deficiencies of OTA in
    >receivability and quantity of content. Both of those issues are
    >addressed by better receivers, SFN's, on channel repeaters, PVR
    >functionality and digital's ability to deliver far more content OTA. I
    >have been arguing since 1999 that advanced codecs like VP6, WM9 and
    >MPEG4 coupled with COFDM would solve these problems. Now maybe 8-VSB can
    >solve them with better receivers and the possibility of SFN's.
    >
    >If so ( i will believe it when I see it) then OTA broadcasting will blow
    >away cable and satellite as we know them. I think broadcasters are
    >awakening to this possibility. If they organize like Emmis is talking
    >about then it all comes together. Could have happened with COFDM better
    >and earlier and we would also have mobile reception which is one thing
    >cable does not have.

    OTA will never replace cable or satellite for the same reasons that
    they came into existence in the first place. You lack of knowledge
    about television broadcasting is really leaving you out in the cold on
    your arguments.

    >No mention of equivalent programming just equivalent quality.
    >
    >Not theoretically this is happening. USDTV is in business and doing this
    >right now. They will in August start selling receivers that do MPEG4.
    >All programming that they deliver via MPEG4 will not be receivable with
    >any current or past 8-VSB receiver. Emmis is touting USDTV's business
    >plan and telling broadcasters that they should emulate USDTV and talking
    >of buying USDTV. 25% of all broadcast stations have already joined Emmis
    >in this venture.

    Yes, but even Ennis obviously has problems. I have to go buy a
    receiver to get their signals. Great, but now they are going to
    change how they transmit, so my receiver is now obsolete, and I have
    to get another one? That's the very reason that 8VSB was selected as
    a STANDARD for broadcasting. Equipment manufacturers and consumers
    could count on the fact that the equipment that they are buying will
    continue to work for a reasonably long period of time. Consumers
    expect that their television systems will function without changes for
    years, and they will not have to dump more money into them simply
    because some little change that doesn't mean anything to them forces
    them to.

    If anything is likely to cause USDTV problems, it's this little
    manuever that they're planning. What are they going to do? Replace
    all the receivers that people have purchased for free? I don't
    really think a fledgling outfit can afford to do that, so they're
    going to have to depend on the consumer, and the consumer is going to
    balk at having to pay more money. Sure, it might be a great idea,
    but the consumer response is going to be "I just bought this damn
    think and they're telling me I have to replace it"

    >
    >As far as Congress (they run the FCC don't worry about what the FCC says
    >or thinks) you should read or listen to the testimony of the two
    >Hearings last month or tune into the one they will have in July.
    >Congress is no longer in the "industrial policy" business. Congressman
    >Barton, chair of the House Commerce Committee said that HDTV is
    >something for the market to take care of Congress is about getting this
    >transition over NOW.
    >
    >There is no more Billy Tauzin to threaten broadcasters about HD. It is
    >over. HD had its chance on OTA and now it is all about transition NOW.
    >Broadcasters will hear nothing about having to do HD if they offer
    >competition to the high cost of cable.
    >
    >They may offer HD free but it will be on the MPEG4 side of the plate.
    >Broadcasters are seeing a chance to get back in control and I think they
    >will take it. The least that will happen is that all current receivers
    >are made obsolete. And broadcasters have to do it ASAP because the
    >longer they wait the more receivers will be made obsolete.

    I really wonder if your problem is just lack of cognizent thinking or
    lack of education. The public in this country has expressed a desire
    for HDTV. Even if you currently don't have a set that can receive it,
    consumers are looking forward to the day they can replace what they
    have with someting to receive some form of advanced television
    picture. The broadcasters are in the business to respond to
    consumers, they know where their money comes from. HD has been very
    successful on OTA, and for the next few years will probably be the one
    thing that keeps OTA alive, regardless of your view.

    Bob, your experience and education has been too limited. Perhaps you
    should stick with the things you know. Or at least spend a year
    learning how the broadcast industry works before you go spouting off
    about things that make you look stupid.


    ----== 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 =---
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV Sony Home Theatre