Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

USDTV

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 6:39:53 PM

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

Bob Miller wants us to believe that USDTV will
(1) kill cable and satellite
(2) will kill free OTA HDTV broadcasting

For a reality check, we consult the USDTV website:

Let's look at what USDTV offers for channels: Disney, Toon Disney,
Lifetime, HGTV, Food Network, ESPN, ESPN 2, Discovery, TLC, FOX News. All
in SD.

Let's look at what market areas are served by USDTV: Salt Lake City,
Albuquerque, Las Vegas.

Let's look at what USDTV brags about: access to HDTV & Surround Sound on
the free OTA channels.

Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
$5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
$30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
cancel before the first year.

But...but...but... What about all those USDTV receivers being sold
nationwide by Wal-Mart? They're just being sold as ordinary 8-VSB
receivers, at full retail.

USDTV is in the STB business as well as the business of bottom-feeding by
undercutting the cable company for the most popular channels. I doubt
very much that either cable or satellite companies are much worried about
USDTV.

However, Bob Miller is worried about USDTV. USDTV is a company that has a
strong reason to make HDTV work in the US. Bob Miller wants HDTV to fail.

Bob Miller's FUD, in this case, is to damn by issuing praise that leaves a
bad taste in one's mouth.

Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, 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.

More about : usdtv

Anonymous
June 28, 2004 10:14:44 PM

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

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeremy Deats' wrote:
> So for your $20/month with USDTV you're paying about $1.81 per subscription
> channel per month (20/11). Ok, so let's compare Digital Cable service. Time
> Warner Cable in Texas (Houston and Austin) offers over 250 subscription
> based channels with their "basic" digital package which cost $40/month. The
> cost for digital cable per month is about $0.16 per channel (40/250).

In all fairness, cable prices vary greatly. In my area, Comcast charges
$45/month for analog service (locals plus about 30 cable channels).
Digital cable is $70 and up.

Let's put it this way, a *lot* of people have dumped cable for satellite
around here..........

So, USDTV's subscription service numbers can look a lot better. Of
course, there is no USDTV service in this area, but Wal-Mart sells the
USDTV boxes as set-top boxes to pick up free OTA.

> The
> cost difference is insane. USTV cost over a hundred times more than digital
> cable when you break down what you're actually getting.

Granted. But on the other hand, if all you want are the handful of
channels that USDTV offers, it can be a good deal.

> So what is the target market for USDTV? It's a budget-end novelty service
> designed to lure the uneducated consumer who thinks they are getting a good
> deal (as I've pointed out, the reality is the opposite) this is why they've
> teamed up with Wal-Mart.

Don't forget, Wal-Mart sells the boxes as ATSC set-top boxes in non-USDTV
served areas. It's pretty clever, actually; the consumer gets a cheap
ATSC tuner for their cheap HDTV TV, and USDTV gets a customer list that in
the future they can send "how would you like to get some additional
channels on the equipment you already have."

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 12:18:45 AM

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

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Then of course add in the hearings in the Senate and House a few weeks ago
> where Congress said to hell with industrial policy and full speed ahead with
> the digital transition, HD was left in the dust. Broadcasters were told that
> anything goes just get it done NOW.

Remember, any time Bob Miller says anything, the exact 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.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 12:23:50 AM

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

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
> Bob Miller wants us to believe that USDTV will
> (1) kill cable and satellite
> (2) will kill free OTA HDTV broadcasting
>
> For a reality check, we consult the USDTV website:
>
> Let's look at what USDTV offers for channels: Disney, Toon Disney,
> Lifetime, HGTV, Food Network, ESPN, ESPN 2, Discovery, TLC, FOX News. All
> in SD.
>

Add the History Channel, DIY and The Golf Channel and this covers about
85% of what is watched in our house.

> Let's look at what market areas are served by USDTV: Salt Lake City,
> Albuquerque, Las Vegas.
>
> Let's look at what USDTV brags about: access to HDTV & Surround Sound on
> the free OTA channels.
>
> Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
> one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
> $5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
> $30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
> cancel before the first year.
>
> But...but...but... What about all those USDTV receivers being sold
> nationwide by Wal-Mart? They're just being sold as ordinary 8-VSB
> receivers, at full retail.
>
> USDTV is in the STB business as well as the business of bottom-feeding by
> undercutting the cable company for the most popular channels. I doubt
> very much that either cable or satellite companies are much worried about
> USDTV.
>
> However, Bob Miller is worried about USDTV. USDTV is a company that has a
> strong reason to make HDTV work in the US. Bob Miller wants HDTV to fail.
>
> Bob Miller's FUD, in this case, is to damn by issuing praise that leaves a
> bad taste in one's mouth.
>
> Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, 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.
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 4:47:16 AM

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

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
>....
> Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
> one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
> $5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
> $30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
> cancel before the first year.
>
> > -- Mark --

Thanks Mark,

I'd like to reiterate what I've said before about USDTV because a lot of
people are wondering what it is. As you point out, someone who subscribes to
this service only gets 11 subscription based channels (Disney, ESPN, Fox
News, Food Network, etc...) and all of these are in standard definition.
What they offer in terms of HD content is the FREE over-the-air networks:
ABC, NBC and PBS, that's it.

So for your $20/month with USDTV you're paying about $1.81 per subscription
channel per month (20/11). Ok, so let's compare Digital Cable service. Time
Warner Cable in Texas (Houston and Austin) offers over 250 subscription
based channels with their "basic" digital package which cost $40/month. The
cost for digital cable per month is about $0.16 per channel (40/250). The
cost difference is insane. USTV cost over a hundred times more than digital
cable when you break down what you're actually getting.

And... most cable providers do not require a contract, for an additional
$3.00/month TimeWarner in Houston offers up six subscription based HD
channels + FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS in HD. TimeWarner offers optional (HD
compatible) Digital Video Recorder enabled cable boxes in many markets (and
they only charge a $5.00/month fee for the DRV service) , then you have
on-demand pay-per-view and on demand "free" content (and very soon,
on-demand HD content).

Then you have consolidation services such as high speed Internet which
enables Voice over IP (Time Warner Digital Phone) which is an incredible
value.

So what is the target market for USDTV? It's a budget-end novelty service
designed to lure the uneducated consumer who thinks they are getting a good
deal (as I've pointed out, the reality is the opposite) this is why they've
teamed up with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is recognized as the low-cost leader and
is currently the #1 retailer in the US (not to mention the #1 company on the
Fortune 100 list), but Wal-Mart doesn't always have the best prices or
bargains, especially on consumer electronics. Their customer base just
assumes this is so and US hopes to benefit from the brand loyality.

Regarding Bob.... Bob needs USDTV to be successful, because it follows a
model he's been preaching to us about for years now. It's over the air
subscription TV, it also paves the way for possible COFDM modulation outside
the FCC 8VSB mandate (which tickels Bob to no end) and probably because of
this Bob ignores the math behind how good a value USDTV really is.

-Jeremy
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 5:26:49 AM

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

USDTV is not the end it is the beginning.

In August USDTV will start selling receivers with WM9 and PVR
functionality. This will increase the number of programs that they can
deliver from 12 to 24 or maybe 36 with the same number of participating
broadcasters in any market.

But that is not the end either because the really relevant part of the
USDTV offering is that it has awakened broadcasters to the possibilities
they have with OTA broadcasting spectrum. And with the advent of the
better 8-VSB receivers that Zenith promises in the fourth quarter OTA is
looking like it may have a business plan worth looking at.

Then of course add in the hearings in the Senate and House a few weeks
ago where Congress said to hell with industrial policy and full speed
ahead with the digital transition, HD was left in the dust. Broadcasters
were told that anything goes just get it done NOW.

Hence all the activity since this years NAB. Broadcasters are plotting
new ideas. They are going to be allowed to co-mingle, co-operate and
build cohesive collaborative, co-located ventures. In other words they
are going to be encouraged to compete with cable and satellite by being
allowed to form a coalition, co-operative or a consortium.

Any argument that only consults the here and now, USDTV, and doesn't
explore the possible will be far off the mark.

Any market that sees twenty channels using WM9 or MPEG4 and 15 Mbps of
bandwidth per channel (total 300 Mbps) put together to offer a
compelling collection of HD, SD both free and subscription based will be
able to compete with cable and satellite. With the correct PVR
capability they will blow them away.

As far as VOIP and cables vaunted broadband. Technology to compete with
cable, satellite and broadcasters for ALL their products is now
available and will be deployed outside the monopoly protection they all
now enjoy.

That is why I have said all along that mobile is the last area that
broadcast TV spectrum has a monopoly on. This spectrum is the best
spectrum their is for mobile services and that is all it will be used
for when its over. COFDM would have allowed broadcasters to have a
service that their competitors could not offer.



Jeremy Deats' wrote:
> "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
>
>>....
>>Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
>>one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
>>$5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
>>$30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
>>cancel before the first year.
>>
>> > -- Mark --
>
>
> Thanks Mark,
>
> I'd like to reiterate what I've said before about USDTV because a lot of
> people are wondering what it is. As you point out, someone who subscribes to
> this service only gets 11 subscription based channels (Disney, ESPN, Fox
> News, Food Network, etc...) and all of these are in standard definition.
> What they offer in terms of HD content is the FREE over-the-air networks:
> ABC, NBC and PBS, that's it.
>
> So for your $20/month with USDTV you're paying about $1.81 per subscription
> channel per month (20/11). Ok, so let's compare Digital Cable service. Time
> Warner Cable in Texas (Houston and Austin) offers over 250 subscription
> based channels with their "basic" digital package which cost $40/month. The
> cost for digital cable per month is about $0.16 per channel (40/250). The
> cost difference is insane. USTV cost over a hundred times more than digital
> cable when you break down what you're actually getting.
>
> And... most cable providers do not require a contract, for an additional
> $3.00/month TimeWarner in Houston offers up six subscription based HD
> channels + FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS in HD. TimeWarner offers optional (HD
> compatible) Digital Video Recorder enabled cable boxes in many markets (and
> they only charge a $5.00/month fee for the DRV service) , then you have
> on-demand pay-per-view and on demand "free" content (and very soon,
> on-demand HD content).
>
> Then you have consolidation services such as high speed Internet which
> enables Voice over IP (Time Warner Digital Phone) which is an incredible
> value.
>
> So what is the target market for USDTV? It's a budget-end novelty service
> designed to lure the uneducated consumer who thinks they are getting a good
> deal (as I've pointed out, the reality is the opposite) this is why they've
> teamed up with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is recognized as the low-cost leader and
> is currently the #1 retailer in the US (not to mention the #1 company on the
> Fortune 100 list), but Wal-Mart doesn't always have the best prices or
> bargains, especially on consumer electronics. Their customer base just
> assumes this is so and US hopes to benefit from the brand loyality.
>
> Regarding Bob.... Bob needs USDTV to be successful, because it follows a
> model he's been preaching to us about for years now. It's over the air
> subscription TV, it also paves the way for possible COFDM modulation outside
> the FCC 8VSB mandate (which tickels Bob to no end) and probably because of
> this Bob ignores the math behind how good a value USDTV really is.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 3:34:56 AM

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

I cannot figure out what you guys are arguing about.

From what I remember, USDTV uses local OTA stations to transmit their
signal.

I assume that means they will use they will use secondary video streams from
local stations.

If they do that means those local stations cannot transmit 1080i or 720p
since there is not enough bit capacity to transmit hdtv and secondary
channels using OTA ??

Is this true or is there something else going on

Richard R.

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
> Bob Miller wants us to believe that USDTV will
> (1) kill cable and satellite
> (2) will kill free OTA HDTV broadcasting
>
> For a reality check, we consult the USDTV website:
>
> Let's look at what USDTV offers for channels: Disney, Toon Disney,
> Lifetime, HGTV, Food Network, ESPN, ESPN 2, Discovery, TLC, FOX News. All
> in SD.
>
> Let's look at what market areas are served by USDTV: Salt Lake City,
> Albuquerque, Las Vegas.
>
> Let's look at what USDTV brags about: access to HDTV & Surround Sound on
> the free OTA channels.
>
> Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
> one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
> $5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
> $30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
> cancel before the first year.
>
> But...but...but... What about all those USDTV receivers being sold
> nationwide by Wal-Mart? They're just being sold as ordinary 8-VSB
> receivers, at full retail.
>
> USDTV is in the STB business as well as the business of bottom-feeding by
> undercutting the cable company for the most popular channels. I doubt
> very much that either cable or satellite companies are much worried about
> USDTV.
>
> However, Bob Miller is worried about USDTV. USDTV is a company that has a
> strong reason to make HDTV work in the US. Bob Miller wants HDTV to fail.
>
> Bob Miller's FUD, in this case, is to damn by issuing praise that leaves a
> bad taste in one's mouth.
>
> Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, 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.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 4:08:51 AM

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

See in-line comments:

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tz3Ec.4372$lh4.310@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> USDTV is not the end it is the beginning.
>
> In August USDTV will start selling receivers with WM9 and PVR
> functionality. This will increase the number of programs that they can
> deliver from 12 to 24 or maybe 36 with the same number of participating
> broadcasters in any market.
>

That increase in number of channels is made possible by WM9 and that jump
from 24 to "maybe 36" is Standard Definition channels, in terms of HD
content that bandwidth could be used to provide maybe 3 additional HD
channels. My understanding is the PVR they will plan on providing does not
record HD, also I have not seen the monthly fee USDTV plans to charge for
the PVR service. In contrast the big cable providers are providing HD
enabled PVRs at a cost of as little as $5.00/month over what the non-PVR
boxes are going for. This is a very small step forward.


> But that is not the end either because the really relevant part of the
> USDTV offering is that it has awakened broadcasters to the possibilities
> they have with OTA broadcasting spectrum. And with the advent of the
> better 8-VSB receivers that Zenith promises in the fourth quarter OTA is
> looking like it may have a business plan worth looking at.
>

Which broadcasters? The broadcasters currently sending out free signal now?


> Hence all the activity since this years NAB. Broadcasters are plotting
> new ideas. They are going to be allowed to co-mingle, co-operate and
> build cohesive collaborative, co-located ventures. In other words they
> are going to be encouraged to compete with cable and satellite by being
> allowed to form a coalition, co-operative or a consortium.
>

I don't think anywould would argue this is going to be a great thing for
everyone.

> Any argument that only consults the here and now, USDTV, and doesn't
> explore the possible will be far off the mark.
>

Good point. The cable and sat providers will be forced to compete and I'd
predict that as soon as they see a real threat they will lower their cost
and/or they will continue to find ways to add value to the services they
currently charge for. A good example is Time Warner cable. In many markets
they are now offering quality VoIP (Voice over IP) service for customers
that subscribe to their broadband (Roadrunner) service. As a subscriber to
TimeWarner cable and TimeWarner cable Roadrunner, I'm paying roughly
$80/month for those service combined. Soon I'll have the opportinity to pay
a flat rate of $34/month for VoIP "digital phone" service and I'll never
have to pay long distance again on my lan line. My monthly phone bill though
Southwestern Bell is currently $70/month after long distance package and
local fees. TimeWarner has added value to their service and they are saving
me a considerable amount to stick with them and on top of that they offer
excellent support. They will soon also offer security monitoring services
and I've been told that their will be price breaks to existing Time Warner
customers.

Cable companies have built this infrastructure and I believe they charge
what they do largely because they can, when pressured they will find a way
to compete and possibly make these OTA subscription based services dead on
arrival.


> Any market that sees twenty channels using WM9 or MPEG4 and 15 Mbps of
> bandwidth per channel (total 300 Mbps) put together to offer a
> compelling collection of HD

Again, how many HD channels could they possibly squeeze into that space? I'm
guessing 6-7? Cable providers would be smart to not do anything and let
providers such as USDTV invest in their infrastructure based on WM9 or
MPEG4, cable/sat providers are at the advantage at this point because of
their marketshare. In 2-3 years down the road as these services mature,
technology will continue to grow and WM9 and MPEG4 will give way to new,
more advanced compression formats in a very short period of time, cable
providers will then be able to transition in new reciever boxes capable of
receving 37-43 HD channels (that's a guess based on the taking the
improvements offered by WM9 over MPEG-2 and doubling the possibilities for
what we can predict will come next).

That's just a hypothetical scenario, but a very realistic one I believe. I'm
not saying cable companies can't be defeated in this game, but if they play
it smart and compete it will be extreemly difficult to make a dent.


> SD both free and subscription based will be
> able to compete with cable and satellite. With the correct PVR
> capability they will blow them away.
>

See above, I don't think you're giving much credit to the sat and cable
providers. The smart ones will carefully strategize and the opposite of what
you say is more likely. These new services will be lucky to stay afloat, but
in the end the consumer is going to win because we'll have more options and
we'll be paying less in some way.



> As far as VOIP and cables vaunted broadband. Technology to compete with
> cable, satellite and broadcasters for ALL their products is now
> available and will be deployed outside the monopoly protection they all
> now enjoy.
>

That's a great thing, to compete they will most likely reduce cost of
services on consolidation.

> That is why I have said all along that mobile is the last area that
> broadcast TV spectrum has a monopoly on. This spectrum is the best
> spectrum their is for mobile services and that is all it will be used
> for when its over. COFDM would have allowed broadcasters to have a
> service that their competitors could not offer.
>
>

There are very complicated reasons behind the existance of the current US
system for mobile networks. I'm currently reading Wireless Internet
Applicatios & Architecture by Mark Beaulieu. I highly recommend this book
(although it's a bit technical in the mobile application developed arena)
It goes into the history of our (US) allocation of the specturm and the
reasons why. COFDM isn't the cure all you believe it to be, it will never
see the light of day here.




>
> Jeremy Deats' wrote:
> > "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> > news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
> >
> >>....
> >>Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
> >>one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
> >>$5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
> >>$30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if
you
> >>cancel before the first year.
> >>
> >> > -- Mark --
> >
> >
> > Thanks Mark,
> >
> > I'd like to reiterate what I've said before about USDTV because a lot of
> > people are wondering what it is. As you point out, someone who
subscribes to
> > this service only gets 11 subscription based channels (Disney, ESPN, Fox
> > News, Food Network, etc...) and all of these are in standard definition.
> > What they offer in terms of HD content is the FREE over-the-air
networks:
> > ABC, NBC and PBS, that's it.
> >
> > So for your $20/month with USDTV you're paying about $1.81 per
subscription
> > channel per month (20/11). Ok, so let's compare Digital Cable service.
Time
> > Warner Cable in Texas (Houston and Austin) offers over 250 subscription
> > based channels with their "basic" digital package which cost $40/month.
The
> > cost for digital cable per month is about $0.16 per channel (40/250).
The
> > cost difference is insane. USTV cost over a hundred times more than
digital
> > cable when you break down what you're actually getting.
> >
> > And... most cable providers do not require a contract, for an additional
> > $3.00/month TimeWarner in Houston offers up six subscription based HD
> > channels + FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS in HD. TimeWarner offers optional
(HD
> > compatible) Digital Video Recorder enabled cable boxes in many markets
(and
> > they only charge a $5.00/month fee for the DRV service) , then you have
> > on-demand pay-per-view and on demand "free" content (and very soon,
> > on-demand HD content).
> >
> > Then you have consolidation services such as high speed Internet which
> > enables Voice over IP (Time Warner Digital Phone) which is an incredible
> > value.
> >
> > So what is the target market for USDTV? It's a budget-end novelty
service
> > designed to lure the uneducated consumer who thinks they are getting a
good
> > deal (as I've pointed out, the reality is the opposite) this is why
they've
> > teamed up with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is recognized as the low-cost leader
and
> > is currently the #1 retailer in the US (not to mention the #1 company on
the
> > Fortune 100 list), but Wal-Mart doesn't always have the best prices or
> > bargains, especially on consumer electronics. Their customer base just
> > assumes this is so and US hopes to benefit from the brand loyality.
> >
> > Regarding Bob.... Bob needs USDTV to be successful, because it follows a
> > model he's been preaching to us about for years now. It's over the air
> > subscription TV, it also paves the way for possible COFDM modulation
outside
> > the FCC 8VSB mandate (which tickels Bob to no end) and probably because
of
> > this Bob ignores the math behind how good a value USDTV really is.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:41:13 PM

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

Richard R wrote:
>
> I cannot figure out what you guys are arguing about.
>
> From what I remember, USDTV uses local OTA stations to transmit their
> signal.
>
> I assume that means they will use they will use secondary video streams from
> local stations.
>
> If they do that means those local stations cannot transmit 1080i or 720p
> since there is not enough bit capacity to transmit hdtv and secondary
> channels using OTA ??

In GBay, WI two of the three HD OTA Channels (ABC 720p & PBS 1080i)

transmit HD on -1 chan & SD on -2 channel...

Sub Channel -1 is 15 mbps & -2 is 2.5 mbps for ABC 720p...

out of 19.33 mbps total bandwidth....

This appears to be a reasonable compromise to offer 'additional'

OTA program content including HD...... 720p requires slightly less

bandwidth than 1080i...




>
> Is this true or is there something else going on
>
> Richard R.
>
> "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
> > Bob Miller wants us to believe that USDTV will
> > (1) kill cable and satellite
> > (2) will kill free OTA HDTV broadcasting
> >
> > For a reality check, we consult the USDTV website:
> >
> > Let's look at what USDTV offers for channels: Disney, Toon Disney,
> > Lifetime, HGTV, Food Network, ESPN, ESPN 2, Discovery, TLC, FOX News. All
> > in SD.
> >
> > Let's look at what market areas are served by USDTV: Salt Lake City,
> > Albuquerque, Las Vegas.
> >
> > Let's look at what USDTV brags about: access to HDTV & Surround Sound on
> > the free OTA channels.
> >
> > Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
> > one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
> > $5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
> > $30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
> > cancel before the first year.
> >
> > But...but...but... What about all those USDTV receivers being sold
> > nationwide by Wal-Mart? They're just being sold as ordinary 8-VSB
> > receivers, at full retail.
> >
> > USDTV is in the STB business as well as the business of bottom-feeding by
> > undercutting the cable company for the most popular channels. I doubt
> > very much that either cable or satellite companies are much worried about
> > USDTV.
> >
> > However, Bob Miller is worried about USDTV. USDTV is a company that has a
> > strong reason to make HDTV work in the US. Bob Miller wants HDTV to fail.
> >
> > Bob Miller's FUD, in this case, is to damn by issuing praise that leaves a
> > bad taste in one's mouth.
> >
> > Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, 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.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:52:30 PM

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

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Richard R wrote:
> From what I remember, USDTV uses local OTA stations to transmit their
> signal.
> I assume that means they will use they will use secondary video streams from
> local stations.

Correct.

> If they do that means those local stations cannot transmit 1080i or 720p
> since there is not enough bit capacity to transmit hdtv and secondary
> channels using OTA ??

No. You can get at least one SD subchannel in addition to an HD
subchannel. Or you can get at least three SD subchannels.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 8:40:02 PM

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

Dennis Mayer wrote:

>
> Richard R wrote:
>
>>I cannot figure out what you guys are arguing about.
>>
>>From what I remember, USDTV uses local OTA stations to transmit their
>>signal.
>>
>>I assume that means they will use they will use secondary video streams from
>>local stations.
>>
>>If they do that means those local stations cannot transmit 1080i or 720p
>>since there is not enough bit capacity to transmit hdtv and secondary
>>channels using OTA ??
>
>
> In GBay, WI two of the three HD OTA Channels (ABC 720p & PBS 1080i)
>
> transmit HD on -1 chan & SD on -2 channel...
>
> Sub Channel -1 is 15 mbps & -2 is 2.5 mbps for ABC 720p...
>
> out of 19.33 mbps total bandwidth....
>
> This appears to be a reasonable compromise to offer 'additional'
>
> OTA program content including HD...... 720p requires slightly less
>
> bandwidth than 1080i...

The only "reasonable" use of the spectrum long term. We are talking many
years right? Is to use the spectrum as efficiently as possible. That
means limiting the DAMAGE the MPEG2 compression does to EFFICIENCY to as
small a portion of the bandwidth as possible. If they can statistically
multiplex programs with both MPEG2 and WM9 I would expect USDTV type
ventures (there will be more) to limit MPEG2 to as SMALL a variable bit
rate channel as they can and still satisfy the FCC rules while
MAXIMIZING the bandwidth they are using for WM9 and also allowing for
their receivers to be updated OTA so that they can take advantage of any
future better compression codecs.

To me that means carefully picking the content that is being broadcast
with MPEG2 so that it uses the least amount of data. That would regulate
all current receivers to receiving a single SD channel that was most
likely composed of programming with as little action in it as possible.
Talking heads is one example . Only the lips and occasionally the blink
of an eye or a head movement, all of course frowned upon by management
which would prefer the least movement of any kind.

Brave new world of DTV.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Is this true or is there something else going on
>>
>>Richard R.
>>
>>"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
>>news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406281427360.5588@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
>>
>>>Bob Miller wants us to believe that USDTV will
>>> (1) kill cable and satellite
>>> (2) will kill free OTA HDTV broadcasting
>>>
>>>For a reality check, we consult the USDTV website:
>>>
>>>Let's look at what USDTV offers for channels: Disney, Toon Disney,
>>>Lifetime, HGTV, Food Network, ESPN, ESPN 2, Discovery, TLC, FOX News. All
>>>in SD.
>>>
>>>Let's look at what market areas are served by USDTV: Salt Lake City,
>>>Albuquerque, Las Vegas.
>>>
>>>Let's look at what USDTV brags about: access to HDTV & Surround Sound on
>>>the free OTA channels.
>>>
>>>Let's look at what USDTV sells: you pay $20 for the receiver with a
>>>one-year subscription commitment at $20/month for the first receiver and
>>>$5/month for each additional receiver. They also sell an HD antenna for
>>>$30, and will install for $50. $200 cancellation fee per receiver if you
>>>cancel before the first year.
>>>
>>>But...but...but... What about all those USDTV receivers being sold
>>>nationwide by Wal-Mart? They're just being sold as ordinary 8-VSB
>>>receivers, at full retail.
>>>
>>>USDTV is in the STB business as well as the business of bottom-feeding by
>>>undercutting the cable company for the most popular channels. I doubt
>>>very much that either cable or satellite companies are much worried about
>>>USDTV.
>>>
>>>However, Bob Miller is worried about USDTV. USDTV is a company that has a
>>>strong reason to make HDTV work in the US. Bob Miller wants HDTV to fail.
>>>
>>>Bob Miller's FUD, in this case, is to damn by issuing praise that leaves a
>>>bad taste in one's mouth.
>>>
>>>Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, 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.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:35:03 AM

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

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Well unfortunately for your line of "reasoning" it is not just me Jeff. It is
> common sense and all owners of spectrum will want to maximize its delivery of
> data.

Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!

Bob Miller wouldn't know common sense if it whacked him on the head with a
two by four.

> If they can deliver three HD streams or 10 SD streams with WM9 they are going
> to. The law that regulates them and that specifies that they only have to
> deliver ONE SD program in NTSC quality did NOT specify how many bits it had
> to use or what the content has to be. That law that was written BY them was
> written they way it is for a GOOD reason.

There is a law which is much harsher. That law is the Law Of The Market.

USDTV customers will be a minority. The broadcaster will have to earn its
primary revenue from advertising revenue on the free broadcast. If they
broadcast a shitty picture, people will choose a competitor that offers a
better picture.

FOX found that out the hard way. People saw the difference between FOX's
SD compared to the HD on CBS, NBC, ABC, and WB -- and they let FOX know.
480p isn't good enough. PAX is the only network which has said that it
will stay SD, and nobody watches PAX anyway.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:52:44 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:C1CEc.271$R36.173
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> To me

And there goes your whole argument. Unless you can provide some other
source that agrees with your FUD, you'll only get the newbies here to
seriously consider anything you say.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 2:40:18 AM

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

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:C1CEc.271$R36.173
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>To me
>
>
> And there goes your whole argument. Unless you can provide some other
> source that agrees with your FUD, you'll only get the newbies here to
> seriously consider anything you say.
>
Well unfortunately for your line of "reasoning" it is not just me Jeff.
It is common sense and all owners of spectrum will want to maximize its
delivery of data.

If they can deliver three HD streams or 10 SD streams with WM9 they are
going to. The law that regulates them and that specifies that they only
have to deliver ONE SD program in NTSC quality did NOT specify how many
bits it had to use or what the content has to be. That law that was
written BY them was written they way it is for a GOOD reason.
July 1, 2004 12:50:14 PM

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

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:40:02 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

<snip>
>Brave new world of DTV.

Yep, it's here. HDTV and 8VSB. As mandated by the government of the
US and suppoerted by manufacturers and consumers.

You keep ignoring the big hole in your argument. The consumers will
never accept anything where they have to replace receivers every six
months because there's some new 'latest and greatest" compression
scheme they need to have. Forcing this on consumers is a guarantee
that you are going to severly limit your expansion capabilities.

Heck, try getting people to upgrade their computer systems to the
latest version of Windows Media Player, and it's free. It just
doesn't happen.






----== 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
July 1, 2004 2:47:56 PM

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

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>> There is a law which is much harsher. That law is the Law Of The Market.
>> USDTV customers will be a minority.
> Minority of what?

A minority of the total eyeballs viewing a broadcaster's product.

Subchannels carrying USDTV-carried programming are of no consequence to
cable TV or satellite customers. These customers are already receiving
that programming as cable or satellite channels. These customers, which
represent the majority of the eyeballs viewing the broadcaster's product,
represent revenue to the broadcaster only when those customers are viewing
the free broadcast.

These customers will not watch inferior product; given a choice between HD
programming and SD customers will gravitate to HD. This forces the
broadcasters to have HD programming in order to retain the eyeballs.

In order for your inane theory to make sense, you would have to assume
that USDTV will carry programming that is unique to USDTV, or that will be
sold by USDTV independently to the cable and satellite companies; and that
the broadcasters will get a cut of the fees. But that assumption makes no
sense. USDTV does not produce programming of its own; it is a reseller.
There is no reason why the cable or satellite companies would pay a
middleman such as USDTV, much less the middleman's passive partner.

The very fact that you make such inane arguments indicates that you don't
have a clue as to the television market.

Once again, it is proven that whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite
is true.

> Why would a broadcaster HAVE to earn its PRIMARY revenue on the free
> broadcast?

Because there is no money to be made otherwise. Broadcasters make their
money from selling advertising time, at much higher rates than they charge
USDTV.

USDTV is a reseller, buying extra bandwidth from broadcasters. This is
all based on the notion that this extra bandwidth is cheap, available on a
"use it or lose it" basis; that the broadcaster absorbs the primary costs
of broadcasting on the free broadcast; and that this piggy-back will
always be cheap.

USDTV would die if it had to pay the airtime rates that advertisers pay.

> How much money does cable and satellite earn on their FREE channels?

There is no such thing as a "free" channel on cable or satellite, with the
possible exception of the cable/satellite provider's free "how to hook up
your system" or "system news" channel.

Cable and satellite charge for their transmission of the local broadcaster
channels.

> How does PRIMARY revenue differ from secondary revenue?

Sales of advertising air time, the primary revenue, is what pays the
bills. Selling piggy-back time is gravy, not meat.

> If a broadcaster gets
> 10 times the secondary revenue from subscription services why would he
> treasure his 1/10th of revenue garnered from PRIMARY more because it is
> somehow PRIMARY?

If the moon were made out of green cheese, why shouldn't we send
rocketships to mine it and put the cheesemakers out of business?

It is a waste of time to talk about a nonsensical possibility.

> What keeps a broadcaster from offering content FREE on the WM9 side of the
> spectrum if free is so important?

Advertisers won't buy it, at least not a high enough rate to make it
viable. WM9 is not the standard. There aren't enough eyeballs.

> I would expect that the best content will ALL end up in the subscription side
> of things. The advertising model is getting weaker. With digital broadcaster
> are no longer limited to the advertising model.

If that were the case, then why is it that movie channels (HBO, Showtime,
etc.) are the only ones which have made the "pay-TV sans advertising"
model work? And it's arguable that the movie channels are not truly
advertising-free.

All of the other program providers rely upon advertising. There may be a
fee to subscribe to the programming (although these days it's generally
bundled in as a package price), but the real money is in selling
advertising.

Cable and satellite have been in this business for decades, and the
results that you forecast did not happen.

> Content is king. Consumers go for the content first and then if there is a
> choice of who can provide the best content they will go with the better
> picture after weighing ANY price differential.

If that were true most broadcasting would still be black & white today.

You truly are a snake-oil salesman.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 3:59:34 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Well unfortunately for your line of "reasoning" it is not just me
>> Jeff. It is common sense and all owners of spectrum will want to
>> maximize its delivery of data.
>
>
> Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
>
> Bob Miller wouldn't know common sense if it whacked him on the head with
> a two by four.
>
>> If they can deliver three HD streams or 10 SD streams with WM9 they
>> are going to. The law that regulates them and that specifies that they
>> only have to deliver ONE SD program in NTSC quality did NOT specify
>> how many bits it had to use or what the content has to be. That law
>> that was written BY them was written they way it is for a GOOD reason.
>
>
> There is a law which is much harsher. That law is the Law Of The Market.
>
> USDTV customers will be a minority.

Minority of what?

> The broadcaster will have to earn
> its primary revenue from advertising revenue on the free broadcast.

Why would a broadcaster HAVE to earn its PRIMARY revenue on the free
broadcast?

How much money does cable and satellite earn on their FREE channels?

How does PRIMARY revenue differ from secondary revenue? If a broadcaster
gets 10 times the secondary revenue from subscription services why would
he treasure his 1/10th of revenue garnered from PRIMARY more because it
is somehow PRIMARY?

What keeps a broadcaster from offering content FREE on the WM9 side of
the spectrum if free is so important?

I would expect that the best content will ALL end up in the subscription
side of things. The advertising model is getting weaker. With digital
broadcaster are no longer limited to the advertising model.

> If
> they broadcast a shitty picture, people will choose a competitor that
> offers a better picture.

Content is king. Consumers go for the content first and then if there is
a choice of who can provide the best content they will go with the
better picture after weighing ANY price differential.
>
> FOX found that out the hard way. People saw the difference between
> FOX's SD compared to the HD on CBS, NBC, ABC, and WB -- and they let FOX
> know. 480p isn't good enough. PAX is the only network which has said
> that it will stay SD, and nobody watches PAX anyway.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
July 1, 2004 3:59:35 PM

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

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:59:34 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> USDTV customers will be a minority.
>
>Minority of what?


A minority of the TV viewers in any market that they are broadcasting
in. Extrapolation of ideas isn't your strong suit, is it?

>
>> The broadcaster will have to earn
>> its primary revenue from advertising revenue on the free broadcast.
>
>Why would a broadcaster HAVE to earn its PRIMARY revenue on the free
>broadcast?

Let's see. Broadcasters make all their money right now from
advertising revenue. Major market broadcasters ability to charge for
advertising is directly dependent on maket share, as determined by
ratings. Dropping the HD signal they are now broadcasting would mean
alienation of consumers, with subsequent complaints and loss of market
share. Therefore loss of advertising revenue at a level which would
not be made up through any level of "subscription" service.

Can I make it any clearer for you Bobbie?

>
>How much money does cable and satellite earn on their FREE channels?

LOL. Ok Bobbie, you're ignorance is really starting to show. I
realized you knew nothing about the OTA broadcasting business, but now
you're showing that you know nothing about cable and satellite
broadcasting. There is no such thing as a free channel. Oh, sorry,
I take that back, there is PBS, but nobody makes money from it.

>
>How does PRIMARY revenue differ from secondary revenue? If a broadcaster
>gets 10 times the secondary revenue from subscription services why would
>he treasure his 1/10th of revenue garnered from PRIMARY more because it
>is somehow PRIMARY?

There's no chance that the small portion of the subscription fee that
a station would receive would make up for the huge loss in advertising
revenue when their market share drops. As I've said, spend some time
learning about the broadcasting business, then you might be qualified
to have a discussion about it.

>
>What keeps a broadcaster from offering content FREE on the WM9 side of
>the spectrum if free is so important?

Because the consumer will have to purchase new equipment to receive
this free contect. Sure new consumers would have the choice, but
those with existing equipment wouldn't consider it, since they already
have options in place where they don't have to buy equipment.

>
>I would expect that the best content will ALL end up in the subscription
>side of things. The advertising model is getting weaker. With digital
>broadcaster are no longer limited to the advertising model.
>

The best content has always ended up on the subscription side. HBO,
ShowTime, CineMax, and so on are doing a great business. Of course,
so is ABC, CBS, and NBC, just not as good as they were before the
advent of cable and satellite.

>
>Content is king. Consumers go for the content first and then if there is
>a choice of who can provide the best content they will go with the
>better picture after weighing ANY price differential.

>>
>> FOX found that out the hard way. People saw the difference between
>> FOX's SD compared to the HD on CBS, NBC, ABC, and WB -- and they let FOX
>> know. 480p isn't good enough. PAX is the only network which has said
>> that it will stay SD, and nobody watches PAX anyway.
>>
>> -- Mark --

Bottom line, until you can explain what's happened to Fox in relation
to how the USDTV arrangement works, don't bother talking about OTA
broadcasters.

You need to understand the business a whole lot better.




----== 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
July 2, 2004 2:53:58 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:mjHEc.400$oD3.77
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Jeff Shoaf wrote:
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:C1CEc.271$R36.173
>> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>>To me
>>
>>
>> And there goes your whole argument. Unless you can provide some other
>> source that agrees with your FUD, you'll only get the newbies here to
>> seriously consider anything you say.
>>
> Well unfortunately for your line of "reasoning" it is not just me Jeff.
> It is common sense and all owners of spectrum will want to maximize its
> delivery of data.
>

HA! There's no common sense in the USDTV scheme. Folks that are willing
to pay for a STB to get additional content are already subscribed to
cable and/or satellite. They're not likely to buy another STB just to pay
more for fewer channels than they're getting from cable or satellite.
Broadcasters are loosing market share to cable/satellite channels; free
OTA HDTV is what will bring viewers back to network affiliates.

> If they can deliver three HD streams or 10 SD streams with WM9 they are
> going to. The law that regulates them and that specifies that they only
> have to deliver ONE SD program in NTSC quality did NOT specify how many
> bits it had to use or what the content has to be. That law that was
> written BY them was written they way it is for a GOOD reason.

Dude, most local stations were hesitant to spend money on DTV and HDTV
broadcast equipment, especially untill there were enough HD and DTVs sold
to make it worth their while by bringing in additional viewers (which
gets us back to the old "which came first - the chicken or the egg -
discusion; viewers didn't want to buy HD receivers until there was
content, broadcasters didn't want to provide content until there were
viewers). They certainly don't want to spend more money on additional
equipment to broadcast other _non-standard_ signals to a very small group
of viewers that will buy a _non-standard_ receiver - this is a worse
"chicken or egg" scenario than HD and DTV since it doesn't use a
federally mandated standard.

Upon just slight examination, your "reasoning" is easily exposed as self-
serving, non-logical, and just plain silly.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:53:59 AM

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

"Jeff Shoaf" <jeffshoaf-@-alltel.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9519BFD92EBF5jeffshoafalltel.net@63.223.5.95...
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:mjHEc.400$oD3.77
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > Jeff Shoaf wrote:
> >> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:C1CEc.271$R36.173
> >> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >>
> >>>To me
> >>
> >>
> >> And there goes your whole argument. Unless you can provide some other
> >> source that agrees with your FUD, you'll only get the newbies here to
> >> seriously consider anything you say.
> >>
> > Well unfortunately for your line of "reasoning" it is not just me Jeff.
> > It is common sense and all owners of spectrum will want to maximize its
> > delivery of data.
> >
>
> HA! There's no common sense in the USDTV scheme. Folks that are willing
> to pay for a STB to get additional content are already subscribed to
> cable and/or satellite. They're not likely to buy another STB just to pay
> more for fewer channels than they're getting from cable or satellite.
> Broadcasters are loosing market share to cable/satellite channels; free
> OTA HDTV is what will bring viewers back to network affiliates.
>
> > If they can deliver three HD streams or 10 SD streams with WM9 they are
> > going to. The law that regulates them and that specifies that they only
> > have to deliver ONE SD program in NTSC quality did NOT specify how many
> > bits it had to use or what the content has to be. That law that was
> > written BY them was written they way it is for a GOOD reason.
>
> Dude, most local stations were hesitant to spend money on DTV and HDTV
> broadcast equipment, especially untill there were enough HD and DTVs sold
> to make it worth their while by bringing in additional viewers (which
> gets us back to the old "which came first - the chicken or the egg -
> discusion; viewers didn't want to buy HD receivers until there was
> content, broadcasters didn't want to provide content until there were
> viewers). They certainly don't want to spend more money on additional
> equipment to broadcast other _non-standard_ signals to a very small group
> of viewers that will buy a _non-standard_ receiver - this is a worse
> "chicken or egg" scenario than HD and DTV since it doesn't use a
> federally mandated standard.

One way to sell more HD TVs is for HD-DVD to come to market. Then
people would have a reason to buy a HD tv, which will create a demand for
HD content from all providers. I wish that all the parties involved in the
current
process of selecting a 'standard' would just get it done! I believe that
this would
give a big lift to HD and DTV.



>
> Upon just slight examination, your "reasoning" is easily exposed as self-
> serving, non-logical, and just plain silly.
>
>
!