Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wal-Mart hi-def OTA tuner for $200?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
August 20, 2004 8:31:48 PM

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

I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and noticed
a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919

'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 9:19:26 PM

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

Like to try one out to see if it is worth the $200 !!
"Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
noticed
> a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
>
> 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 1:22:00 AM

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

Art wrote:

> Like to try one out to see if it is worth the $200 !!
> "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
>
>>I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
>
> noticed
>
>>a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
>>
>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
>>
>>'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
>
>
>
Wait till November/December. Their next model will include Zenith/LG
chipset which is very good. Far better than anything out there now.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 1:34:38 AM

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

That is the Format they tried to force people to go with, but it should work.

I use the Samsung 500 and a small UHF antenna.

"Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and noticed
> a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
>
> 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 3:12:04 AM

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

"Art" <plotsligt@comcast.net> wrote in news:7pWdnQaI6LND97vcRVn-
sA@comcast.com:

> Like to try one out to see if it is worth the $200 !!

Wal-Mart has a very liberal return policy. Buy one, return it within the
same billing cycle of your credit card, and it will cost you nothing to
find out.

> "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
>> I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> noticed
>> a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
>>
>> 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
>
>
August 21, 2004 2:22:53 PM

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

> I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> noticed a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.

According the listed info: "You'll enjoy DVD-quality television for most of
your favorite programs and big TV events in the new digital HDTV format "

Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 6:48:36 PM

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

pt wrote:

> According the listed info: "You'll enjoy DVD-quality television for most of
> your favorite programs and big TV events in the new digital HDTV format "
>
> Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?

pt,
I suspect that they mean SD received OTA or "ED" will appear as
"DVD-quality and also "big TV events" will be sent in HDTV.

Seems a fair statement and acknowledges that all content transmitted OTA
digitally is not HD.
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 6:52:40 PM

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

I bought one of Wal-Mart's $200 HDTV OTA receivers over a month ago.

It works great.

Coupled with a Radio Shack indoor antennae, I'm picking up all my local HD
stations just fine.

I bought it for the NBC Olympics HD feed. The NBC HD picture is great, but
the NBC HD content is a waste.
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 7:30:57 PM

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

> Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?

Yes, but the Wal-Mart HDTV receiver does true HD.

The DVD reference was probably written by a marketing copy writer that
thinks DVD is the bomb.
August 21, 2004 7:30:58 PM

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

Curious,

??>> Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?

CC> Yes, but the Wal-Mart HDTV receiver does true HD.

Ahh - it suddenly sounds appealing again. <g>

CC> The DVD reference was probably written by a marketing copy writer that
thinks DVD is the bomb.

heh.

pt
August 21, 2004 8:09:25 PM

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

Jsheldon,

??>> According the listed info: "You'll enjoy DVD-quality television for
most
??>> of your favorite programs and big TV events in the new digital HDTV
??>> format "
??>>
??>> Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?

J> pt,
J> I suspect that they mean SD received OTA or "ED" will appear as
J> "DVD-quality and also "big TV events" will be sent in HDTV.

Oh, yes I see that now. Puctuation may have solved that mis-read on my
part. <g>

pt
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 8:55:41 PM

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

No channel display on the box.
no thanks


--
A widescreen edition of a movie presents the film frame as it was seen in
the movie theater. This is the version that best preserves the filmmaker's
original intent.

End of story!
"Joe H" <JoeT@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:h_SdnfdmIMrgKbvcRVn-qg@giganews.com...
> That is the Format they tried to force people to go with, but it should
work.
>
> I use the Samsung 500 and a small UHF antenna.
>
> "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> > I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
noticed
> > a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
> >
> > 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
>
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 1:34:54 AM

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

"Curious Cat" <nospamcat23@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RUJVc.42260$4s6.29730@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?
>
> Yes, but the Wal-Mart HDTV receiver does true HD.
>
> The DVD reference was probably written by a marketing copy writer that
> thinks DVD is the bomb.


I think the DVD reference may pertain to the additional subscription
programming that US Digital is offering in a couple of markets which is
broadcast on leased sub-channels.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 1:47:34 AM

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

"pt" <pt_not@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jVIVc.32149$ZI1.1223154@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> > noticed a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
>
> According the listed info: "You'll enjoy DVD-quality television for most
of
> your favorite programs and big TV events in the new digital HDTV format "
>
> Isn't 'DVD-quality' 480p?

You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a company
selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on other stations'
secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.

That's the reason behind the copy.

It is a genuine ATSC HDTV receiver with additional software that you won't
need unless you buy the "cable without the cable" service... which is only
available in a couple of places anyway..
August 22, 2004 2:50:11 AM

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

Randy,
RS> You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a
RS> company selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on
RS> other stations' secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.

ehhh - I'll have to go find an HDTV transmission primer to figure out what
you mean.

RS> That's the reason behind the copy.

RS> It is a genuine ATSC HDTV receiver with additional software that you
won't
RS> need unless you buy the "cable without the cable" service... which is
only
RS> available in a couple of places anyway..

Ditto 'Cable without the Cable' (I get the meaning, not the context - maybe
this is an ad I haven't seen?)

pt
August 22, 2004 4:18:03 PM

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

In article <yqednabiWJmqZrrcRVn-jg@comcast.com>, rsweeney1@comcast.net
says...
> You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a company
> selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on other stations'
> secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.
>

Randy had me scratching my head, too.

Looking at Wal-Mart's description again, I noted
"Receiver is USDTV-ready, so when USDTV becomes available in your area..."

Googling "USDTV" finds http://www.usdtv.com/ -- the cable-sat alternative.
This is the first I had heard of this one.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:21:26 PM

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

"pt" <pt_not@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:VRTVc.42519$Tr.2151029@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Randy,
> RS> You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a
> RS> company selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on
> RS> other stations' secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.
>
> ehhh - I'll have to go find an HDTV transmission primer to figure out what
> you mean.

Let's say you have HD broadcaster on channel 25.

ATSC can carry both an HD primary channel (like 25-1) and secondary SD
channels (25-2, 25-3) with the leftover bits that the primary channel
doesn't use out of the 19 Mb/sec the entire packet stream is carrying.

Where I live, the NBC DT affiliate puts a 4:3 version of the primary channel
on the -2 and a realtime weather radar feed on the -3. None of the other
DT's are using theirs at the moment... and that creates a business
opportunity.

USDTV http://www.usdtv.com/index.php, is a company that rents the secondary
channel spaces on a number of local broadcasters (in three cities at the
moment it seems) and crams them full of overcompressed cable channels which
can then be received by the specially made Wal-Mart box for only $20/month.

Apparently they have more boxes than customers at the moment and are selling
them just as ATSC receivers.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:26:14 PM

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

"Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b9259475923dd429896b4@news.easynews.com...
> In article <yqednabiWJmqZrrcRVn-jg@comcast.com>, rsweeney1@comcast.net
> says...
> > You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a
company
> > selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on other
stations'
> > secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.
> >
>
> Randy had me scratching my head, too.
>
> Looking at Wal-Mart's description again, I noted
> "Receiver is USDTV-ready, so when USDTV becomes available in your area..."
>
> Googling "USDTV" finds http://www.usdtv.com/ -- the cable-sat alternative.
> This is the first I had heard of this one.

USDTV rents all the extra DT bandwidth in a city to allow it to transmit
their "cable network" channels to their subscribers.

The interesting part about this is that they have plans to move from MPEG-2
to WM9 compression which should allow them to cram in a lot more pixels.

They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system. You pick
your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night they get
downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 8:57:27 PM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> "pt" <pt_not@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:VRTVc.42519$Tr.2151029@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>Randy,
>> RS> You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a
>> RS> company selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on
>> RS> other stations' secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.
>>
>>ehhh - I'll have to go find an HDTV transmission primer to figure out what
>>you mean.
>
>
> Let's say you have HD broadcaster on channel 25.
>
> ATSC can carry both an HD primary channel (like 25-1) and secondary SD
> channels (25-2, 25-3) with the leftover bits that the primary channel
> doesn't use out of the 19 Mb/sec the entire packet stream is carrying.
>
> Where I live, the NBC DT affiliate puts a 4:3 version of the primary channel
> on the -2 and a realtime weather radar feed on the -3. None of the other
> DT's are using theirs at the moment... and that creates a business
> opportunity.
>
> USDTV http://www.usdtv.com/index.php, is a company that rents the secondary
> channel spaces on a number of local broadcasters (in three cities at the
> moment it seems) and crams them full of overcompressed cable channels which
> can then be received by the specially made Wal-Mart box for only $20/month.
>
> Apparently they have more boxes than customers at the moment and are selling
> them just as ATSC receivers.
>
>

Is "overcompressed" an editorial comment, your opinion or do you have
specific information?

1080i HD is compressed down from 1.485 Gbps to around 15 Mbps using
MPEG2 to stuff it into 19.34 Mbps. Some might suggest that THAT is
overcompressed and the number of complaints about blocking and
pixelization in high action HD programs suggest they are right. Some
suggest that using COFDM that delivers 19.76 Mbps at a more robust
reception mode and using a more advanced compression codec like VP(x)
would have spared us all the agony we have experienced over the last 5
years. Both those suggestions were made in 2000.

Are you suggesting that USDTV is compressing their SD programs even MORE
than current HDTV is being compressed by ANYONE?

The US rush to HD OTA made major mistakes in both the compression codec
used, MPEG2, and the digital TV modulation used, 8-VSB. The main reason
in both cases was to lock in IP Royalty cash flows for special interest
who help support our current political campaign.

The results are the 5 year stagnation in our digital transition,
overpriced and inferior receivers and our current sub standard picture
quality.

USDTV is addressing a number of those issues. First they are about to
convert to the FIRST MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE 8-VSB receiver, the 5th
generation LG. Second they have included in the current and future
receivers sold at WalMart the ability to UPGRADE to the WM9 codec that
will allow the EVEN HIGHER COMPRESSION of SD and HD programs. This
HIGHER compression will deliver a FAR HIGHER QUALITY program. Higher
compression does not mean, ipso facto, that quality suffers.

This will allow broadcasters to LIMIT the DAMAGE that the FCC and
Congress inflicted on OUR spectrum by doing an end run around the LAW.
Which the law allows BTW. Broadcasters will LIMIT their REQUIRED
broadcast of ONE SD program using MPEG2 in the free and clear to just
that, ONE PROGRAM, and use the rest to our spectrum to deliver HD, SD
and ED programming, that you probably will have to pay a fee for, using WM9.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 8:57:28 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xf4Wc.30409$9Y6.2640@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
> > "pt" <pt_not@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:VRTVc.42519$Tr.2151029@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> >>Randy,
> >> RS> You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for
a
> >> RS> company selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on
> >> RS> other stations' secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.
> >>
> >>ehhh - I'll have to go find an HDTV transmission primer to figure out
what
> >>you mean.
> >
> >
> > Let's say you have HD broadcaster on channel 25.
> >
> > ATSC can carry both an HD primary channel (like 25-1) and secondary SD
> > channels (25-2, 25-3) with the leftover bits that the primary channel
> > doesn't use out of the 19 Mb/sec the entire packet stream is carrying.
> >
> > Where I live, the NBC DT affiliate puts a 4:3 version of the primary
channel
> > on the -2 and a realtime weather radar feed on the -3. None of the other
> > DT's are using theirs at the moment... and that creates a business
> > opportunity.
> >
> > USDTV http://www.usdtv.com/index.php, is a company that rents the
secondary
> > channel spaces on a number of local broadcasters (in three cities at the
> > moment it seems) and crams them full of overcompressed cable channels
which
> > can then be received by the specially made Wal-Mart box for only
$20/month.
> >
> > Apparently they have more boxes than customers at the moment and are
selling
> > them just as ATSC receivers.
> >
> >
>
> Is "overcompressed" an editorial comment, your opinion or do you have
> specific information?
>
> 1080i HD is compressed down from 1.485 Gbps to around 15 Mbps using
> MPEG2 to stuff it into 19.34 Mbps. Some might suggest that THAT is
> overcompressed and the number of complaints about blocking and
> pixelization in high action HD programs suggest they are right. Some
> suggest that using COFDM that delivers 19.76 Mbps at a more robust
> reception mode and using a more advanced compression codec like VP(x)
> would have spared us all the agony we have experienced over the last 5
> years. Both those suggestions were made in 2000.
>
> Are you suggesting that USDTV is compressing their SD programs even MORE
> than current HDTV is being compressed by ANYONE?
>
> The US rush to HD OTA made major mistakes in both the compression codec
> used, MPEG2, and the digital TV modulation used, 8-VSB. The main reason
> in both cases was to lock in IP Royalty cash flows for special interest
> who help support our current political campaign.
>
> The results are the 5 year stagnation in our digital transition,
> overpriced and inferior receivers and our current sub standard picture
> quality.
>
> USDTV is addressing a number of those issues. First they are about to
> convert to the FIRST MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE 8-VSB receiver, the 5th
> generation LG.

How will a buyer know if he is getting the new 5th generation LG receiver?

>Second they have included in the current and future
> receivers sold at WalMart the ability to UPGRADE to the WM9 codec that
> will allow the EVEN HIGHER COMPRESSION of SD and HD programs. This
> HIGHER compression will deliver a FAR HIGHER QUALITY program. Higher
> compression does not mean, ipso facto, that quality suffers.
>
> This will allow broadcasters to LIMIT the DAMAGE that the FCC and
> Congress inflicted on OUR spectrum by doing an end run around the LAW.
> Which the law allows BTW. Broadcasters will LIMIT their REQUIRED
> broadcast of ONE SD program using MPEG2 in the free and clear to just
> that, ONE PROGRAM, and use the rest to our spectrum to deliver HD, SD
> and ED programming, that you probably will have to pay a fee for, using
WM9.
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 9:09:10 PM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:

(snipped)
>
> USDTV http://www.usdtv.com/index.php, is a company that rents the secondary
> channel spaces on a number of local broadcasters (in three cities at the
> moment it seems) and crams them full of overcompressed cable channels which
> can then be received by the specially made Wal-Mart box for only $20/month.
>
> Apparently they have more boxes than customers at the moment and are selling
> them just as ATSC receivers.
>
>
It is not the fact that they have few customers, WalMart planned on
selling these receivers country wide from the beginning.

They do have few customers. It is the fault of 8-VSB and MPEG2. They can
not get enough programming crammed into the spectrum they have using
MPEG2. They only offer 12 channels. They also have reception problems
with current receivers. They have picked cities like Salt Lake, Las
Vegas and Albuquerque to minimize the reception problems of 8-VSB. They
would not have tried this in a New York.

It is not because you might want or suggest that their business plan is
wrong. Next year when they have better receivers and use a better codec
which allows twice the programming they and others with similar business
plans will own OTA broadcasting.

I repeat my prediction that the Christmas quarter of 2005 they and
others, with similar business plans, will sell in excess of 3 million
receivers and that in the year of 2006 at least 12 million OTA receivers
will be sold and maybe as many as 15 million.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:18:38 PM

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

"Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
noticed
> a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
>
> 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?

Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a few
bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.

BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:18:39 PM

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

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2s5Wc.295420$a24.177554@attbi_s03...
>
> "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> > I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> noticed
> > a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
> >
> > 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
>
> Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a few
> bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.
>
> BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!


And which retailers do you believe treats their employees well?
I am curious.


BTW... I got my HDTV receiver on sale at Sears for $150 - $50 less than
Wal-Mart.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:18:39 PM

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

someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
>
> Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a few
> bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.
>
> BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!
>


So if your employment options are ZERO or Wal-Mart, which would YOU choose?
I bet it beats the hell out of being a hamburger flipper.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:18:40 PM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VdednSnq95iEebXcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
> "Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2s5Wc.295420$a24.177554@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> > > I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> > noticed
> > > a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
> > >
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
> > >
> > > 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
> >
> > Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a few
> > bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.
> >
> > BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!
>
>
> And which retailers do you believe treats their employees well?
> I am curious.
>
>
> BTW... I got my HDTV receiver on sale at Sears for $150 - $50 less than
> Wal-Mart.
>
>
Which receiver did you get for that price?
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:18:41 PM

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

"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rp8Wc.7316$Ka6.2298@okepread03...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:VdednSnq95iEebXcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2s5Wc.295420$a24.177554@attbi_s03...
> > >
> > > "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> > > > I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> > > noticed
> > > > a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
> > > >
> > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
> > > >
> > > > 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
> > >
> > > Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a
few
> > > bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.
> > >
> > > BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!
> >
> >
> > And which retailers do you believe treats their employees well?
> > I am curious.
> >
> >
> > BTW... I got my HDTV receiver on sale at Sears for $150 - $50 less than
> > Wal-Mart.
> >
> >
> Which receiver did you get for that price?

Funai-Sylvania http://www.funai-corp.com/6900dtd.html

Works quite well with a pair of rabbit ears/loop.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:19:21 PM

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

"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nr8Wc.7318$Ka6.1572@okepread03...

> > Is "overcompressed" an editorial comment, your opinion or do you have
> > specific information?

Overcompressed is editorial with a taste of techno-guestimate.

Experience with digital cable, OTA DT secondary locals, and satellite
indicates that bandwidth limited carriers never met a signal they didn't
want to squeeze to the bare minimum.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:21:34 PM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tdGdneBqkMe0VLXcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b9259475923dd429896b4@news.easynews.com...
> > In article <yqednabiWJmqZrrcRVn-jg@comcast.com>, rsweeney1@comcast.net
> > says...
> > > You have to remember the source for this receiver. It was made for a
> company
> > > selling proprietary, highly compressed OTA SDTV streams on other
> stations'
> > > secondary channels as well as to receive ATSC HDTV.
> > >
> >
> > Randy had me scratching my head, too.
> >
> > Looking at Wal-Mart's description again, I noted
> > "Receiver is USDTV-ready, so when USDTV becomes available in your
area..."
> >
> > Googling "USDTV" finds http://www.usdtv.com/ -- the cable-sat
alternative.
> > This is the first I had heard of this one.
>
> USDTV rents all the extra DT bandwidth in a city to allow it to transmit
> their "cable network" channels to their subscribers.
>
> The interesting part about this is that they have plans to move from
MPEG-2
> to WM9 compression which should allow them to cram in a lot more pixels.
>
> They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system. You pick
> your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night they get
> downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.

What happens if you can't watch the movie the next day? Can you delay the
viewing period without extra cost?
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:21:35 PM

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

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o u5Wc.295424$a24.62852@attbi_s03...


> > They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system. You
pick
> > your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night they
get
> > downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.
>
> What happens if you can't watch the movie the next day? Can you delay the
> viewing period without extra cost?

Don't know the commercial details, only read about the technology in an
engineering publication.

I suspect the easiest deal is that you get to keep your hard disk filled -
much like the Netflix model.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:46:00 PM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VdednSnq95iEebXcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
> "Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2s5Wc.295420$a24.177554@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "Mistress" <mistress@s&m.org> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b8ff18839bc27359896b3@news.easynews.com...
> > > I was in my local Wal-Mart today (washing their glass ceilings) and
> > noticed
> > > a two-hundred dollar HDTV tuner.
> > >
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z48724919
> > >
> > > 'Bout time someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
> >
> > Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a few
> > bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.
> >
> > BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!
>
>
> And which retailers do you believe treats their employees well?
> I am curious.

Costco. Excellent pay and benefits.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:46:01 PM

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

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IR5Wc.167583$8_6.69305@attbi_s04...


> > And which retailers do you believe treats their employees well?
> > I am curious.
>
> Costco. Excellent pay and benefits.

I agree, but Costco is not a retailer in the conventional sense.

I was thinking more along the lines of Wal-Mart's competition.
Target, K-Mart, Best Buy, and the like.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 12:24:25 AM

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

"Jim Waggener" <jimw@nospam.visi.net> wrote in message
news:4128ebfb_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> someone made a price breakthrough. Anyone tried this?
> >
> > Walmart - slave wages, no benefits. Horrible place to work. Spend a few
> > bucks more and buy from some place that treats their employees well.
> >
> > BOYCOT WALLYWORLD!
> >
>
>
> So if your employment options are ZERO or Wal-Mart, which would YOU
choose?
> I bet it beats the hell out of being a hamburger flipper.

It depends on where you flip burgers. In-N-Out starts burger flippers out at
nearly $9 an hour with full benefits. Managers make nearly $100k per year
and they promote from within. Sounds pretty good for a burger flipper.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 12:24:26 AM

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

Bootstrap Bill (wrcousert@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> It depends on where you flip burgers. In-N-Out starts burger flippers out at
> nearly $9 an hour with full benefits.

Basically the same wage as everywhere else...once you adjust for the cost
of living in California.

I live in one of the most expensive counties in Maryland, and I'd still
need to double my salary if I wanted to live in CA with the same lifestyle.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/NoWetFood...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:11:51 AM

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

> USDTV rents all the extra DT bandwidth in a city to allow it to transmit
> their "cable network" channels to their subscribers.
>
> The interesting part about this is that they have plans to move from MPEG-2
> to WM9 compression which should allow them to cram in a lot more pixels.
>
> They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system. You pick
> your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night they get
> downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.

Nothing personal against USDTV, but I really hope their business model
fails. USDTV's success comes at the expense of HDTV. Since ATSC is
stuck using old MPEG-2, HDTV broadcasts need every bit of bandwidth.

I accept multicasting for PBS and other 'public services' (like weather
maps), because such applications serve the public. But broadcast TV
spectrum for commercial-VOD? That seems like a terrible waste of bandwidth.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:11:52 AM

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

"hello" <hello@goodbye.com> wrote in message
news:XK9Wc.10216$oO5.3049@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> > USDTV rents all the extra DT bandwidth in a city to allow it to transmit
> > their "cable network" channels to their subscribers.
> >
> > The interesting part about this is that they have plans to move from
MPEG-2
> > to WM9 compression which should allow them to cram in a lot more pixels.
> >
> > They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system. You
pick
> > your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night they
get
> > downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.
>
> Nothing personal against USDTV, but I really hope their business model
> fails. USDTV's success comes at the expense of HDTV. Since ATSC is
> stuck using old MPEG-2, HDTV broadcasts need every bit of bandwidth.
>
> I accept multicasting for PBS and other 'public services' (like weather
> maps), because such applications serve the public. But broadcast TV
> spectrum for commercial-VOD? That seems like a terrible waste of
bandwidth.

I agree... but unlike the USDTV "cableless cable" system, the non-real-time
VOD/Tivo system can use opportunistic data, which can have NO impact on HDTV
quality.

We all should worry that the Sinclair vision of l SD with reselling of
bandwidth might arise.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:56:55 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> It is not the fact that they have few customers, WalMart planned on
> selling these receivers country wide from the beginning.
>
> They do have few customers. It is the fault of 8-VSB and MPEG2. They can
> not get enough programming crammed into the spectrum they have using
> MPEG2. They only offer 12 channels. They also have reception problems
> with current receivers. They have picked cities like Salt Lake, Las
> Vegas and Albuquerque to minimize the reception problems of 8-VSB. They
> would not have tried this in a New York.

Really? Reception problems? I thought the USDTV receiver was using
4th generation 8-VSB tuners, and future receivers will be the first to
get the 5th generation tuners.

> It is not because you might want or suggest that their business plan is
> wrong. Next year when they have better receivers and use a better codec
> which allows twice the programming they and others with similar business
> plans will own OTA broadcasting.

Well I see several problems. Well mainly just two, depending on how you
look at it.

1) First is the USDTV-receiver itself. USDTV's subscribers have to buy
their own equipment, and $200 is approaching the $300 mark for a
DirectTV-HD setup, which offers *MUCH MORE* programming. On its own
merits, the USDTV receiver is a good bargain, as its the least expensive
ATSC-HDTV tuner on the market. But that price really contradicts the
type of customer USDTV is pursuing...(i.e. customers wanting cheaper
than cable/satellite monthly rates!) It wouldn't surprise me if $200 is
equal to the cost of the TV in the target-market's households!

2) Analog-TV owners aren't going to buy an HD-tuner to watch
HD-programming in analog-quality...with DVD-players below $50, the box
wouldn't sell to analog-owners even if it were priced at $100.

3) But as more and more HDTVs come with built-in ATSC tuners, USDTV's
potential market shrinks. Walmart sell the Sanyo 30/32" HDTVs at $750.
The Samsung 26-32" HDTVs sold at CircuitCity/BestBuy start at $699 (for
the 26/27" model.) The USDTV receiver will become more affordable over
time, but I suspect TV-prices (for integrated-HDTV tuners) will drop
faster than the USDTV-receiver.


The way I see it, USDTV had a much better chance for success if

1) they partnered with a major TV-manufacturer to build-in the USDTV
receiver into TV-sets. This would have had to be planned years
ago, to build up the potential customer base over time.
While this sidesteps the 'aftermarket purchaser' problem, it
makes the USDTV's platfrom non-upgradeable.

or

2) USDTV builds a single-purpose (dedicated) set-topbox. They could
jettison the HDTV-decoding capabilities (costly), and build a
very low-cost box for <$60. A larger portion of the cheapskate
couch potatoes would be more willing to risk $60 (+monthly fee)
on 20-30 channels. From a customer's standpoint this is
'reasonable' (since a standard satellite/TV setup is priced ~$50)

> I repeat my prediction that the Christmas quarter of 2005 they and
> others, with similar business plans, will sell in excess of 3 million
> receivers and that in the year of 2006 at least 12 million OTA receivers
> will be sold and maybe as many as 15 million.

12 million of USDTV-capable receivers, or just 12-million ATSC
receivers?

I'd think USDTV would stand a better chance of signing new subscribers
if they built a standard-def box and sold it for $60. It wouldn't
tune OTA/HDTV, but it would open up their market. I can't imagine too
many HDTV-owners researching the OTA-tuner market, then picking the
USDTV-receiver just for USDTV's pay-service. As you yourself have
noted, the HDTV-market is still 'higher-end', and more likely to already
have cable/satellite service.

Just checking ebay.com, the going price for the cheapest ATSC/OTA
receivers (Sylvania SRZ3000, USDTV) is ~$100-140. That's quite a bit
less than their retail price, suggesting there's no great market
demand for these things. (Some other electronics items routinely
auction at ~80-90% of their new price!)
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 7:45:44 AM

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

Mudd Bug wrote:

> How will a buyer know if he is getting the new 5th generation LG receiver?
>
I think both Hisense and LG will make a big deal about it.

Hisense is supposed to be first selling at WalMart in fourth quarter.
(Rumor) Lg is supposed to be out in first quarter next year.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 8:27:41 AM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "hello" <hello@goodbye.com> wrote in message
> news:XK9Wc.10216$oO5.3049@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>USDTV rents all the extra DT bandwidth in a city to allow it to transmit
>>>their "cable network" channels to their subscribers.
>>>
>>>The interesting part about this is that they have plans to move from
>
> MPEG-2
>
>>>to WM9 compression which should allow them to cram in a lot more pixels.
>>>
>>>They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system. You
>
> pick
>
>>>your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night they
>
> get
>
>>>downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.
>>
>>Nothing personal against USDTV, but I really hope their business model
>>fails. USDTV's success comes at the expense of HDTV. Since ATSC is
>>stuck using old MPEG-2, HDTV broadcasts need every bit of bandwidth.
>>
>>I accept multicasting for PBS and other 'public services' (like weather
>>maps), because such applications serve the public. But broadcast TV
>>spectrum for commercial-VOD? That seems like a terrible waste of
>
> bandwidth.
>
> I agree... but unlike the USDTV "cableless cable" system, the non-real-time
> VOD/Tivo system can use opportunistic data, which can have NO impact on HDTV
> quality.
>
> We all should worry that the Sinclair vision of l SD with reselling of
> bandwidth might arise.
>
>
Might arise??? That is all they are talking about. Resell??? Why if they
can do it themselves. The broadcasters have wanted a way to compete with
cable for years. Their eyes are now open. The law that controls the use
of the spectrum was prudently written by them and it allows them to now
compete with cable for the first time. Do you think they will pass this up??

There was a reason the law said only one SD program, a reason it didn't
say HDTV, a reason it allowed other uses. The one fly in the ointment
for broadcasters was the CEA intrusion into the process demanding 8-VSB
so that they could make a Zillion dollars the last five years. BIG
MISTAKE!!! 8-VSB didn't work. They would have been far better off with
COFDM. OTA 8-VSB was a dis-incentive to the purchase of an HDTV set.

Broadcasters didn't believe in OTA so they paid little attention to the
modulation process until it was too late. And even then they didn't try
very hard for COFDM. Few rushed to the support of Sinclair and they
deserted as soon as CEA's Congressional henchmen made noises. Don't
forget, ABC, NBC, Granite, Pappas and others (DoD for public safety)
were for COFDM in 2000.

People and retailers went out of their way NOT to buy or sell an OTA
receiver. More HDTV sets were sold to watch 480i DVDs than for OTA HDTV.

It was an incredible waste for everyone involved.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 9:01:22 AM

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

hello wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
> >
>
>> It is not the fact that they have few customers, WalMart planned on
>> selling these receivers country wide from the beginning.
>>
>> They do have few customers. It is the fault of 8-VSB and MPEG2. They
>> can not get enough programming crammed into the spectrum they have
>> using MPEG2. They only offer 12 channels. They also have reception
>> problems
>> with current receivers. They have picked cities like Salt Lake, Las
>> Vegas and Albuquerque to minimize the reception problems of 8-VSB.
>> They would not have tried this in a New York.
>
>
> Really? Reception problems? I thought the USDTV receiver was using
> 4th generation 8-VSB tuners, and future receivers will be the first to
> get the 5th generation tuners.

4th generation receivers are about the same as 1st generation receivers
IMO. 5th generation receivers are the big improvement. They did not
factor into USDTV's plans until a few weeks ago. And yes now with 5th
generation receivers their past plans are ancient history. The whole
game changes.
>
>> It is not because you might want or suggest that their business plan
>> is wrong. Next year when they have better receivers and use a better
>> codec which allows twice the programming they and others with similar
>> business plans will own OTA broadcasting.
>
>
> Well I see several problems. Well mainly just two, depending on how you
> look at it.
>
> 1) First is the USDTV-receiver itself. USDTV's subscribers have to buy
> their own equipment, and $200 is approaching the $300 mark for a
> DirectTV-HD setup, which offers *MUCH MORE* programming. On its own
> merits, the USDTV receiver is a good bargain, as its the least expensive
> ATSC-HDTV tuner on the market. But that price really contradicts the
> type of customer USDTV is pursuing...(i.e. customers wanting cheaper
> than cable/satellite monthly rates!) It wouldn't surprise me if $200 is
> equal to the cost of the TV in the target-market's households!

The receiver cost an USDTV customer $19.95 not $200. When they open any
new market it will be with WM9 and that will allow twice the programming
they currently offer. If WalMart sells a lot of Hisense receivers in
other markets for $200 that will only help USDTV enter that market.
>
> 2) Analog-TV owners aren't going to buy an HD-tuner to watch
> HD-programming in analog-quality...with DVD-players below $50, the box
> wouldn't sell to analog-owners even if it were priced at $100.

Well as I said it is priced at $19.95 and will give a analog TV customer
reception of all local DTV channels down converted to 480i but at a
better quality than they now receive those channels OTA. It will give
them a low cost limited cable option and it will future proof them for
when they buy an HDTV. They get the basic cable channels for free OTA.
It also is a great low cost way for someone to go HDTV. $19.95 receiver
with say 24 channels of OTA DVD quality and all the HDTV they can
receive in their market free.
>
> 3) But as more and more HDTVs come with built-in ATSC tuners, USDTV's
> potential market shrinks. Walmart sell the Sanyo 30/32" HDTVs at $750.
> The Samsung 26-32" HDTVs sold at CircuitCity/BestBuy start at $699 (for
> the 26/27" model.) The USDTV receiver will become more affordable over
> time, but I suspect TV-prices (for integrated-HDTV tuners) will drop
> faster than the USDTV-receiver.

The USDTV receiver is $19.95 now. If a customer buys an integrated set
they could have (will have) a deal at WalMart the saves you say $175 on
that integrated set if you sign up with USDTV when you purchase the set.
That is USDTV will give the same subsidy to an integrated HDTV purchase
as they are now giving to an STB purchase. Why wouldn't they?

Our plan with COFDM in 2000 was for free receivers. The business model
screams to do this. It is not a new idea. Cable and satellite do similar.
>
>
> The way I see it, USDTV had a much better chance for success if
>
> 1) they partnered with a major TV-manufacturer to build-in the USDTV
> receiver into TV-sets. This would have had to be planned years
> ago, to build up the potential customer base over time.
> While this sidesteps the 'aftermarket purchaser' problem, it
> makes the USDTV's platfrom non-upgradeable.

They have!!!! They have partnered with the biggest retailer in the
world, WalMart, and the "Sony" of China, Hisense. Hisense grew 30% last
year and will grow 35% this year. The Chinese are coming!! The Chinese
are coming!! If you hadn't noticed. What percentage of product sold at
WalMart comes from China do you figure??

The Chinese are making their own COFDM based DTV modulation and propose
to have 300 million DTV sets in Chinese homes by 2008. We only have 109
million homes total in the US.

The middle class in the US is being sold a bill of goods. We are
becoming a backwater of technology in the world while our Congress picks
our pockets for anyone that comes along. The drug companies, the media
companies, Hollywood or even foreign firms that smile and pay the price.

> or
>
> 2) USDTV builds a single-purpose (dedicated) set-topbox. They could
> jettison the HDTV-decoding capabilities (costly), and build a
> very low-cost box for <$60.

We have had $60 COFDM receivers that do just that for years.

A larger portion of the cheapskate
> couch potatoes would be more willing to risk $60 (+monthly fee)
> on 20-30 channels. From a customer's standpoint this is
> 'reasonable' (since a standard satellite/TV setup is priced ~$50)

Even the Chinese can't beat the high priced IP royalties that LG and
MPEG2 require. Ten times the price that would otherwise be if we didn't
grant the monopolist access to our pockets for things we would never buy
in an open market. VP6 (compression codec) is being bought by the
Chinese for use in their domestic DVDs and for those sold here as well.
But we will have to pay for MPEG2 and MPEG4 also. VP6 cost the Chinese
$2 one time per player.

The Chinese Communist government is doing a better job looking out for
their subjects than our Congress is doing for its citizens. They will
have COFDM and VP6, the best of both, which we proposed to Congress in
2000. They will be light years ahead of us in the next Olympic games in
2008.
>
>> I repeat my prediction that the Christmas quarter of 2005 they and
>> others, with similar business plans, will sell in excess of 3 million
>> receivers and that in the year of 2006 at least 12 million OTA
>> receivers will be sold and maybe as many as 15 million.
>
>
> 12 million of USDTV-capable receivers, or just 12-million ATSC
> receivers?
>
> I'd think USDTV would stand a better chance of signing new subscribers
> if they built a standard-def box and sold it for $60. It wouldn't
> tune OTA/HDTV, but it would open up their market. I can't imagine too
> many HDTV-owners researching the OTA-tuner market, then picking the
> USDTV-receiver just for USDTV's pay-service. As you yourself have
> noted, the HDTV-market is still 'higher-end', and more likely to already
> have cable/satellite service.
>
> Just checking ebay.com, the going price for the cheapest ATSC/OTA
> receivers (Sylvania SRZ3000, USDTV) is ~$100-140. That's quite a bit
> less than their retail price, suggesting there's no great market
> demand for these things. (Some other electronics items routinely
> auction at ~80-90% of their new price!)
>
No great demand because they don't work well. Next year will be a whole
new game. First of all you will have a lot of advertising. There is
virtually no advertising now for OTA anything. Second there will be
multiple USDTV type business plans and they all will offer FREE receivers .
August 23, 2004 7:51:18 PM

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

Wow - thanks all for the input - It'll take me a while to absorb all this.
<g>

(bottom line is - I don't need the extras - I just want a reasonable OTA
receiver)

pt
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:08:25 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
>> "hello" <hello@goodbye.com> wrote in message
>> news:XK9Wc.10216$oO5.3049@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>> USDTV rents all the extra DT bandwidth in a city to allow it to
>>>> transmit their "cable network" channels to their subscribers.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting part about this is that they have plans to move
>>>> from
>>
>> MPEG-2
>>
>>>> to WM9 compression which should allow them to cram in a lot more
>>>> pixels.
>>>>
>>>> They want to offer a non-realtime video-on-demand rental system.
>>>> You
>>
>> pick
>>
>>>> your movies you want for tomorrow and sometime over the day/night
>>>> they
>>
>> get
>>
>>>> downloaded to a hard drive on the box - Tivo style.
>>>
>>> Nothing personal against USDTV, but I really hope their business
>>> model fails. USDTV's success comes at the expense of HDTV. Since
>>> ATSC is stuck using old MPEG-2, HDTV broadcasts need every bit of
>>> bandwidth.
>>>
>>> I accept multicasting for PBS and other 'public services' (like
>>> weather maps), because such applications serve the public. But
>>> broadcast TV spectrum for commercial-VOD? That seems like a
>>> terrible waste of
>>
>> bandwidth.
>>
>> I agree... but unlike the USDTV "cableless cable" system, the
>> non-real-time VOD/Tivo system can use opportunistic data, which can
>> have NO impact on HDTV quality.
>>
>> We all should worry that the Sinclair vision of l SD with reselling
>> of bandwidth might arise.
>>
>>
> Might arise??? That is all they are talking about. Resell??? Why if
> they can do it themselves. The broadcasters have wanted a way to
> compete with cable for years. Their eyes are now open. The law that
> controls the use
> of the spectrum was prudently written by them and it allows them to
> now compete with cable for the first time. Do you think they will
> pass this up??
>
>There was a reason the law said only one SD program, a reason it didn't
>say HDTV, a reason it allowed other uses. The one fly in the ointment
>for broadcasters was the CEA intrusion into the process demanding 8-VSB
>so that they could make a Zillion dollars the last five years. BIG
>MISTAKE!!! 8-VSB didn't work. They would have been far better off with
>COFDM. OTA 8-VSB was a dis-incentive to the purchase of an HDTV set.



Just once I would like to read a post from Bob without him mentioning 8VSB
and COFDM.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 7:29:12 AM

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

> 4th generation receivers are about the same as 1st generation receivers
> IMO. 5th generation receivers are the big improvement. They did not
> factor into USDTV's plans until a few weeks ago. And yes now with 5th
> generation receivers their past plans are ancient history. The whole
> game changes.

I don't see how. People who live in an 'challenging urban multipath'
environment would have already moved to cable/satellite years ago.

People far out aren't automatically back in the game -- not until
all ATSC stations start broadcasting at full power (which some are
already doing, but not all.)

> The receiver cost an USDTV customer $19.95 not $200. When they open any
> new market it will be with WM9 and that will allow twice the programming
> they currently offer. If WalMart sells a lot of Hisense receivers in
> other markets for $200 that will only help USDTV enter that market.

Please explain this. The purchase price of the USDTV receiver (at
walmart.com) is $198 or so. The going-price on ebay is ~$130-140 (only
$10-20 more than the Sylvania SRZ3000, which doesn't have the USDTV
value-added features.)

> Well as I said it is priced at $19.95 and will give a analog TV customer
> reception of all local DTV channels down converted to 480i but at a
> better quality than they now receive those channels OTA.

Sadly, some OTA broadcasters are multicasting, or otherwise doing stupid
things with their channels. Several stations in my area (KCOP/13 and
KCAL/9, to be specific) actually have *better* looking NTSC broadcasts.
KCOP must be using a very lousy encoder, because I can see smearing
and pixellation on their 480i broadcasts (they're not mulicasting.)
KCAL/9 broadcasts SD upconverted to 1080i (what's the point), which
looks worse than a true native-480i broadcast.

I agree *many* fringe-area and 'rabbit-ears' setups will get improved
reception. But due to broadcaster practices and other inefficiencies in
the DTV broadcast chain, some viewers are going to see a step backward.

> It will give
> them a low cost limited cable option and it will future proof them for
> when they buy an HDTV. They get the basic cable channels for free OTA.
> It also is a great low cost way for someone to go HDTV. $19.95 receiver
> with say 24 channels of OTA DVD quality and all the HDTV they can
> receive in their market free.

Tell me where I can get this HD-capable $19.95 receiver (in Southern
California) and I'll buy it tomorrow...

> The USDTV receiver is $19.95 now. If a customer buys an integrated set
> they could have (will have) a deal at WalMart the saves you say $175 on
> that integrated set if you sign up with USDTV when you purchase the set.
> That is USDTV will give the same subsidy to an integrated HDTV purchase
> as they are now giving to an STB purchase. Why wouldn't they?
>
> Our plan with COFDM in 2000 was for free receivers. The business model
> screams to do this. It is not a new idea. Cable and satellite do similar.
>

> They have!!!! They have partnered with the biggest retailer in the
> world, WalMart, and the "Sony" of China, Hisense. Hisense grew 30% last
> year and will grow 35% this year. The Chinese are coming!! The Chinese
> are coming!! If you hadn't noticed. What percentage of product sold at
> WalMart comes from China do you figure??

This has nothing to do with the US market.
>
> The Chinese are making their own COFDM based DTV modulation and propose
> to have 300 million DTV sets in Chinese homes by 2008. We only have 109
> million homes total in the US.

In the Chinese market, VCD players still outsell DVD-players (despite
*REDUCED* IP-fees for DVD licenses), VCD players still outsell VHS
players, and the homegrown-format EVD fell flat on its face.

The only area the Chinese market may be 'ahead' of the rest of the
market is the handheld/wireless (mobile) phone market. For cellphones,
China is already the largest market (by sales volume.)

> The middle class in the US is being sold a bill of goods. We are
> becoming a backwater of technology in the world while our Congress picks
> our pockets for anyone that comes along. The drug companies, the media
> companies, Hollywood or even foreign firms that smile and pay the price.

Foreign firms aren't necessarily profitting, either. Ask all the
Chinese DVD-mfgs that shutdown due to evaporating margins on
DVD-players. (Same problem will happen with DVD-recorders...)

Since you speak so often about China, then you obviously know the
awkward situation of China's electronics industry. They build products
to export to other markets, but the products are too expensive for their
domestic market.

Being able to make a 'low-cost US receiver' doesn't translate into
marketability in their domestic market.

> We have had $60 COFDM receivers that do just that for years.

SDTV receivers, yes, no argument from me.

> Even the Chinese can't beat the high priced IP royalties that LG and
> MPEG2 require.

China licensing rate is lower for their domestic market. And DVD-players
are still unaffordable to the mass Chinese public (except for Hong
Kong.) Exported units are charged the full royalty rate.

> VP6 (compression codec) is being bought by the
> Chinese for use in their domestic DVDs and for those sold here as well.
> But we will have to pay for MPEG2 and MPEG4 also. VP6 cost the Chinese
> $2 one time per player.

VP6 was dropped by E-World Beijing. Instead, they stayed with MPEG-2
(much higher licensing rate!)... do you know something the public
doesn't know?

> The Chinese Communist government is doing a better job looking out for
> their subjects than our Congress is doing for its citizens. They will
> have COFDM and VP6, the best of both, which we proposed to Congress in
> 2000. They will be light years ahead of us in the next Olympic games in
> 2008.

China's HD-push is simply a showboat for world recognition (to coincide
with their hosting of the 2008 Olympics.) While it benefits HD-watchers
in the developed markets (US, Japan, Europe, etc.), it does *NOTHING*
for the average Chinese citizen.

>>> I repeat my prediction that the Christmas quarter of 2005 they and
>>> others, with similar business plans, will sell in excess of 3 million
>>> receivers and that in the year of 2006 at least 12 million OTA
>>> receivers will be sold and maybe as many as 15 million.

I'd really like to see this $19.95 HD-receiver -- I couldn't find it at
walmart.com.

> No great demand because they don't work well. Next year will be a whole
> new game. First of all you will have a lot of advertising. There is
> virtually no advertising now for OTA anything. Second there will be
> multiple USDTV type business plans and they all will offer FREE receivers.

Voom isn't making any money despite their superior HD/OTA-offerings
(versus the incumbents Dish and DirectTV), so I'd really like to see how
a FREE receiver (for shows current viewers obbiously don't care about)
helps at all.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 8:21:41 AM

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

hello wrote:
>> 4th generation receivers are about the same as 1st generation
>> receivers IMO. 5th generation receivers are the big improvement. They
>> did not factor into USDTV's plans until a few weeks ago. And yes now
>> with 5th generation receivers their past plans are ancient history.
>> The whole game changes.
>
>
> I don't see how. People who live in an 'challenging urban multipath'
> environment would have already moved to cable/satellite years ago.
>
They moved from OTA to cable and now many to satellite, they can move
back to OTA as well and will. Berlin had 95% cable satellite penetration
and 13% penetration of OTA DTV in the first 9 months after broadcasting
began.

> People far out aren't automatically back in the game -- not until
> all ATSC stations start broadcasting at full power (which some are
> already doing, but not all.)

Broadcasters are just now having the scales removed from their eyes. The
advent of the 5th generation 8-VSB receiver is the first time in the
history or TV broadcasting that OTA is the superior delivery system. I
can't even imagine a scenario where cable and satellite even survive.
>
>> The receiver cost an USDTV customer $19.95 not $200. When they open
>> any new market it will be with WM9 and that will allow twice the
>> programming they currently offer. If WalMart sells a lot of Hisense
>> receivers in other markets for $200 that will only help USDTV enter
>> that market.
>
>
> Please explain this. The purchase price of the USDTV receiver (at
> walmart.com) is $198 or so. The going-price on ebay is ~$130-140 (only
> $10-20 more than the Sylvania SRZ3000, which doesn't have the USDTV
> value-added features.)
>
At the moment the USDTV receiver is subsidized when you purchase it in
three markets where USDTV is up and running. AFAIK you can only get it
with the purchase of the subscription service, $19.95 per month, for a
year. You pay a one time $19.95 for the Hisense receiver. If you cancel
the contract before its end you are billed an additional $199 for the
receiver. If you buy the receiver in other markets it cost $198.76 at
WalMart.

>
> Sadly, some OTA broadcasters are multicasting, or otherwise doing stupid
> things with their channels.

Time will tell what is stupid and what is prescient. Some PBS channels
are doing some interesting datacasting things. They must be really upset
that they are stuck with 8-VSB. In 1999 I thought the future was
datacasting and PVR functionality, I still think it is. As some
broadcasters discover this now, like PBS, the hyperventilating will
become more common.

Several stations in my area (KCOP/13 and
> KCAL/9, to be specific) actually have *better* looking NTSC broadcasts.
> KCOP must be using a very lousy encoder, because I can see smearing and
> pixellation on their 480i broadcasts (they're not mulicasting.) KCAL/9
> broadcasts SD upconverted to 1080i (what's the point), which looks worse
> than a true native-480i broadcast.
>
> I agree *many* fringe-area and 'rabbit-ears' setups will get improved
> reception. But due to broadcaster practices and other inefficiencies in
> the DTV broadcast chain, some viewers are going to see a step backward.
>
> > It will give
>
>> them a low cost limited cable option and it will future proof them for
>> when they buy an HDTV. They get the basic cable channels for free OTA.
>> It also is a great low cost way for someone to go HDTV. $19.95
>> receiver with say 24 channels of OTA DVD quality and all the HDTV they
>> can receive in their market free.
>
>
> Tell me where I can get this HD-capable $19.95 receiver (in Southern
> California) and I'll buy it tomorrow...

Rumor has it Los Angeles may be the next USDTV market starting in
September unless they have put things on hold till the 5th gen receivers
can be had.
>
>> The USDTV receiver is $19.95 now. If a customer buys an integrated set
>> they could have (will have) a deal at WalMart the saves you say $175
>> on that integrated set if you sign up with USDTV when you purchase the
>> set. That is USDTV will give the same subsidy to an integrated HDTV
>> purchase as they are now giving to an STB purchase. Why wouldn't they?
>>
>> Our plan with COFDM in 2000 was for free receivers. The business model
>> screams to do this. It is not a new idea. Cable and satellite do similar.
>>
>
>> They have!!!! They have partnered with the biggest retailer in the
>> world, WalMart, and the "Sony" of China, Hisense. Hisense grew 30%
>> last year and will grow 35% this year. The Chinese are coming!! The
>> Chinese are coming!! If you hadn't noticed. What percentage of product
>> sold at WalMart comes from China do you figure??
>
>
> This has nothing to do with the US market.

China will dictate what we do with consumer electronics inside of 5
years. Korea did recently with 8-VSB. China is about to take over. It is
just a matter of how much they want to spend in DC. They are building up
a mountain of dollars in Treasury bills. DC seems to want infinite
negative trade balances and China is buying a lot of our debt. We will
do just what they want and when they want it.
>
>>
>> The Chinese are making their own COFDM based DTV modulation and
>> propose to have 300 million DTV sets in Chinese homes by 2008. We only
>> have 109 million homes total in the US.
>
>
> In the Chinese market, VCD players still outsell DVD-players (despite
> *REDUCED* IP-fees for DVD licenses), VCD players still outsell VHS
> players, and the homegrown-format EVD fell flat on its face.
>
> The only area the Chinese market may be 'ahead' of the rest of the
> market is the handheld/wireless (mobile) phone market. For cellphones,
> China is already the largest market (by sales volume.)
>
>> The middle class in the US is being sold a bill of goods. We are
>> becoming a backwater of technology in the world while our Congress
>> picks our pockets for anyone that comes along. The drug companies, the
>> media companies, Hollywood or even foreign firms that smile and pay
>> the price.
>
>
> Foreign firms aren't necessarily profitting, either. Ask all the
> Chinese DVD-mfgs that shutdown due to evaporating margins on
> DVD-players. (Same problem will happen with DVD-recorders...)
>
> Since you speak so often about China, then you obviously know the
> awkward situation of China's electronics industry. They build products
> to export to other markets, but the products are too expensive for their
> domestic market.
>
> Being able to make a 'low-cost US receiver' doesn't translate into
> marketability in their domestic market.
>
>> We have had $60 COFDM receivers that do just that for years.
>
>
> SDTV receivers, yes, no argument from me.
>
>> Even the Chinese can't beat the high priced IP royalties that LG and
>> MPEG2 require.
>
>
> China licensing rate is lower for their domestic market. And DVD-players
> are still unaffordable to the mass Chinese public (except for Hong
> Kong.) Exported units are charged the full royalty rate.
>
>> VP6 (compression codec) is being bought by the Chinese for use in
>> their domestic DVDs and for those sold here as well. But we will have
>> to pay for MPEG2 and MPEG4 also. VP6 cost the Chinese $2 one time per
>> player.
>
>
> VP6 was dropped by E-World Beijing. Instead, they stayed with MPEG-2
> (much higher licensing rate!)... do you know something the public
> doesn't know?

They have to export with MPEG2, that game is not over.
>
>> The Chinese Communist government is doing a better job looking out for
>> their subjects than our Congress is doing for its citizens. They will
>> have COFDM and VP6, the best of both, which we proposed to Congress in
>> 2000. They will be light years ahead of us in the next Olympic games
>> in 2008.
>
>
> China's HD-push is simply a showboat for world recognition (to coincide
> with their hosting of the 2008 Olympics.) While it benefits HD-watchers
> in the developed markets (US, Japan, Europe, etc.), it does *NOTHING*
> for the average Chinese citizen.
>
They announced that they will put DTV into 300 million homes by 2008. We
will see. Command economies can work wonders.
!