OZ

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
OZ has probably the slowest sales of COFDM receivers of all the
countries doing COFDM DTV modulation. Sales are hampered by high prices
for receivers since OZ only has a market of 19 million people or around
4 million households. This makes economies of scale a problem and prices
higher than they would be in a larger market. For example COFDM
receivers in the UK are selling for as little as $50 while a similar
receiver in OZ sells for $200.

Still OZ which is only 1/14th the size of the US has a sales rate that
is accelerating and if compared to the US would be 7 million so far, far
higher than sales in the US. Remember that OZ has only been at this for
three years also compared to the seven the US has been at it.

http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?display=news&newsID=599

Fortunately the US will have a receiver that works, the 5th gen LG,
within a few months. We should then, after waiting for seven years,
finally see our digital transition take off.

The question everyone should ask themselves is why has the US gone off
on its own with an inferior modulation and inferior receivers for the
last seven years? Why have we wasted this time and a lot of money with a
modulation, 8-VSB, that was not ready for prime time?

Bob Miller
40 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Bob Miller wrote:
    > Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
    <Other OT dribble snipped>

    And the fact that exactly 0.00% of them were HD capable makes your post
    completely off-topic for this newsgroup.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:E%vfd.3102$kM.2164
    @newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.


    That's all I can take........ PLONK!
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Dave Solly wrote:
    > Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >>Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
    >
    > That's all I can take........ PLONK!


    cough... cough........


    c.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Jeff Shoaf wrote:
    > Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >> Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
    >
    > <Other OT dribble snipped>
    >
    > And the fact that exactly 0.00% of them were HD capable makes your post
    > completely off-topic for this newsgroup.
    >
    I would be interested in some proof as to that 0.00%. They are
    broadcasting HD in OZ. Are you suggesting that no one is receiving it?
    Where did you get this information?

    And you ignore Japan where sales in only a few months are in the
    millions and these are integrated HD units with only three cities on
    line. Japan will expand coverage next year and sales will accelerate far
    more.

    Lets face it all countries that have gone digital with COFDM both HD and
    SD have taken off like rockets while the US has stagnated with our
    unfortunate choice of modulations, 8-VSB.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Jeff Shoaf wrote:
    > Bob Miller wrote:
    >> Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2
    >> million. <Other OT dribble snipped>
    >
    > And the fact that exactly 0.00% of them were HD capable makes your
    > post completely off-topic for this newsgroup.

    Err - a proportion of them will be HD capable. They are broadcasting
    1080/50i and 576/50p (not really HD I know but similar to the old Fox
    480/60p fudge) using DVB-T, along with some Dolby Digital audio
    occasionally - and at least some of the set top boxes will be capable of
    receiving these transmissions. Aus may not have the HD production levels of
    the US - but they do have some...

    Steve
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Err - a proportion of them will be HD capable. They are broadcasting
    > 1080/50i and 576/50p (not really HD I know but similar to the old Fox
    > 480/60p fudge) using DVB-T, along with some Dolby Digital audio
    > occasionally - and at least some of the set top boxes will be capable of
    > receiving these transmissions. Aus may not have the HD production levels
    > of the US - but they do have some...
    >
    > Steve
    But Europe is like going with 720p50 and OZ was forced for political reasons
    to waste bandwidth on digital standard resolution on top of the HD and 576
    stuff. But Bob thinks this is not important because it is only modulation
    issues that interest him.

    Richard.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Richard wrote:
    > Err - a proportion of them will be HD capable. They are broadcasting
    >
    >>1080/50i and 576/50p (not really HD I know but similar to the old Fox
    >>480/60p fudge) using DVB-T, along with some Dolby Digital audio
    >>occasionally - and at least some of the set top boxes will be capable of
    >>receiving these transmissions. Aus may not have the HD production levels
    >>of the US - but they do have some...
    >>
    >>Steve
    >
    > But Europe is like going with 720p50 and OZ was forced for political reasons
    > to waste bandwidth on digital standard resolution on top of the HD and 576
    > stuff. But Bob thinks this is not important because it is only modulation
    > issues that interest him.
    >
    > Richard.
    >
    What might be important if you want to promote HDTV is that Australia is
    the ONLY country that has MANDATED OTA HDTV.

    What relevance the fact that, in your viewpoint, they "wasted" spectrum
    by triplecasting HD, SD and analog is to us I don't know. What relevance
    does it have? Maybe you could enlighten me.

    What is interesting to me is that in "wasting" spectrum by broadcasting
    HD and SD, they have extra room in their channel BTW (7 MHz as opposed
    to 6 MHz in the US) they GAVE THEIR CITIZEN'S the OPTION of buying an
    only SD STB that could receive 576P and cost a lot less than their HD
    receiver.

    It would be interesting to see how many could tell the difference
    between 576P and 720P on any HD set of 42" or less.

    And yes the only issue I have been addressing is the inadequate 8-VSB
    issue. After all who would be interested in OZ, Europe or anyone else's
    better digital TV experience if our system was working?
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > 8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a success in
    > every country that has deployed it.

    Only in Bob Miller's twisted imagination.

    Remember, Bob Miller is a kook who believes that antenna quality has
    nothing to do with reception quality.

    He is bitter because he bet on the wrong horse, and being psychotic he
    can't let go.

    There is NO country which has nationwide HDTV based upon COFDM modulation.
    Europe doesn't have any HDTV based upon COFDM modulation at all. Japan
    and Australia only have it in a few cities.

    The US has nationwide HDTV based upon 8-VSB, and the service area includes
    rural areas.

    -- Mark --

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

    > What relevance the fact that, in your viewpoint, they "wasted" spectrum
    > by triplecasting HD, SD and analog is to us I don't know. What relevance
    > does it have? Maybe you could enlighten me.

    [Sure Bob; glad to. As implemented in North America, we give the
    broadcasters the option of being flexible. No mandated HDTV but the ability
    to send out several different programs at once. Even HDTV and a different
    standard resolution program. In OZ they are forced to send out one HDTV
    program and the same program in standard resolution, for no good reason.]
    >

    > What is interesting to me is that in "wasting" spectrum by broadcasting HD
    > and SD, they have extra room in their channel BTW (7 MHz as opposed to 6
    > MHz in the US) they GAVE THEIR CITIZEN'S the OPTION of buying an only SD
    > STB that could receive 576P and cost a lot less than their HD receiver.
    >
    [Option? With our system one can design a single box that sends analog
    conventional output to a conventional set from any broadcast DTV format, and
    analog and digital DTV output to any digital TV. With the economy of scale
    you would be able to do this cheaper than needing two different types of
    converter boxes. The politicals in OZ did not understand the technology
    resulting in a pure waste of spectrum].


    > It would be interesting to see how many could tell the difference between
    > 576P and 720P on any HD set of 42" or less.
    >
    [Bet you dollar to donuts that most people could tell the difference between
    576p50 and 720p60 displayed on a full resolution 40 inch HDTV display].

    Early adaptors in OZ had significant reception problems and early adaptors
    in North America had significant reception problems. Both systems seem to
    get the job done along the lines that theory suggested.

    Do you really want to play this game Bob?

    Richard.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Richard wrote:
    >>What relevance the fact that, in your viewpoint, they "wasted" spectrum
    >>by triplecasting HD, SD and analog is to us I don't know. What relevance
    >>does it have? Maybe you could enlighten me.
    >
    >
    > [Sure Bob; glad to. As implemented in North America, we give the
    > broadcasters the option of being flexible. No mandated HDTV but the ability
    > to send out several different programs at once. Even HDTV and a different
    > standard resolution program. In OZ they are forced to send out one HDTV
    > program and the same program in standard resolution, for no good reason.]
    >
    >
    >>What is interesting to me is that in "wasting" spectrum by broadcasting HD
    >>and SD, they have extra room in their channel BTW (7 MHz as opposed to 6
    >>MHz in the US) they GAVE THEIR CITIZEN'S the OPTION of buying an only SD
    >>STB that could receive 576P and cost a lot less than their HD receiver.
    >>
    >
    > [Option? With our system one can design a single box that sends analog
    > conventional output to a conventional set from any broadcast DTV format, and
    > analog and digital DTV output to any digital TV. With the economy of scale
    > you would be able to do this cheaper than needing two different types of
    > converter boxes. The politicals in OZ did not understand the technology
    > resulting in a pure waste of spectrum].
    >
    >
    >
    >>It would be interesting to see how many could tell the difference between
    >>576P and 720P on any HD set of 42" or less.
    >>
    >
    > [Bet you dollar to donuts that most people could tell the difference between
    > 576p50 and 720p60 displayed on a full resolution 40 inch HDTV display].
    >
    > Early adaptors in OZ had significant reception problems and early adaptors
    > in North America had significant reception problems. Both systems seem to
    > get the job done along the lines that theory suggested.
    >
    > Do you really want to play this game Bob?
    >
    > Richard.
    >
    >

    One argument has been that the US has better coverage than other
    countries. This works against 8-VSB when you count how many receivers
    have been sold. When a country with less coverage of its population has
    a higher percentage with digital receivers it suggest they are doing
    something right, something better than the US is doing.

    If Australia using much lower power levels, with less coverage of its
    population and with far less content has five times the number of
    receivers sold in ONE THIRD the time the US has had to do it it suggest
    that they have a better digital modulation.

    Retailers in OZ actually stock and advertise OTA DTV COFDM receivers.

    They emphatically do not have reception problems like we do in the US.
    The US 8-VSB system doesn't and hasn't gotten the job done. We have
    waited four and 1/2 years now since the MSTV test said that 8-VSB was
    unacceptable. We were promised a fix within six months. We were told
    that there was NO problems with fixed or mobile or even indoor reception
    with simple antennas using 8-VSB in the fall of 1999. The second gen
    receivers, we were told then, were better than what 5th gen receivers
    are now.

    8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a success
    in every country that has deployed it.

    Any "game" has long since been lost by 8-VSB. It only holds on to a few
    countries and even there it will be replaced relatively soon.

    The US consumer has been had once again.

    We are not playing a game. We have been working with 8-VSB and COFDM
    receivers since 1998. There is NO comparison in the real world. 8-VSB
    should be turned off now. We should convert to a modern modulation and
    an advanced codec now before we waste more time and money.

    Bob Miller
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Mark Crispin wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >> 8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a success
    >> in every country that has deployed it.
    >
    >
    > Only in Bob Miller's twisted imagination.
    >
    > Remember, Bob Miller is a kook who believes that antenna quality has
    > nothing to do with reception quality.
    >
    > He is bitter because he bet on the wrong horse, and being psychotic he
    > can't let go.
    >
    > There is NO country which has nationwide HDTV based upon COFDM
    > modulation. Europe doesn't have any HDTV based upon COFDM modulation at
    > all. Japan and Australia only have it in a few cities.
    >
    > The US has nationwide HDTV based upon 8-VSB, and the service area
    > includes rural areas.
    >
    > -- Mark --

    Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
    COFDM countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD
    and SD receivers.

    OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
    only been in the game for three years.

    Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
    only three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM
    and has coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million
    receivers sold in a country with 20 million households. That suggest
    that almost 30% of households in England have digital OTA receivers
    after only two years.

    Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.

    Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
    both due to a subsidy.

    France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold
    on to your hats, they will do very well.

    The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
    5th gen receivers.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Bob Miller wrote:

    > Mark Crispin wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> 8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a
    >>> success in every country that has deployed it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Only in Bob Miller's twisted imagination.
    >>
    >> Remember, Bob Miller is a kook who believes that antenna quality has
    >> nothing to do with reception quality.
    >>
    >> He is bitter because he bet on the wrong horse, and being psychotic he
    >> can't let go.
    >>
    >> There is NO country which has nationwide HDTV based upon COFDM
    >> modulation. Europe doesn't have any HDTV based upon COFDM modulation
    >> at all. Japan and Australia only have it in a few cities.
    >>
    >> The US has nationwide HDTV based upon 8-VSB, and the service area
    >> includes rural areas.
    >>
    >> -- Mark --
    >
    >
    > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
    > COFDM countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD
    > and SD receivers.
    >

    ROFLMAOPIMP!!!

    Matthew (See bob miller destroy the principles of logic and reason!!)
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

    > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most COFDM
    > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
    > receivers.
    >
    > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
    > only been in the game for three years.
    >
    > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has only
    > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and has
    > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold in
    > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
    > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
    >
    > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.
    >
    > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than both
    > due to a subsidy.
    >
    > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold on
    > to your hats, they will do very well.
    >
    > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with 5th
    > gen receivers.


    Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are comparing
    apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the UK
    receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in many
    of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous number
    of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In the
    United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many years
    now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture quality
    improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.

    Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons are
    not so cut and dried.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
    COFDM
    > > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
    > > receivers.
    > >
    > > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
    > > only been in the game for three years.
    > >
    > > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
    only
    > > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and
    has
    > > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold
    in
    > > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
    > > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
    > >
    > > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven
    years.
    > >
    > > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
    both
    > > due to a subsidy.
    > >
    > > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold
    on
    > > to your hats, they will do very well.
    > >
    > > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
    5th
    > > gen receivers.
    >
    >
    > Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
    comparing
    > apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the
    UK
    > receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in
    many
    > of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous number
    > of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In the
    > United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many
    years
    > now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture quality
    > improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
    >
    > Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons
    are
    > not so cut and dried.
    >
    >

    The Sky analogue DTH multi-channel system has been running since the 1980s
    and Sky Digital since the 1990's... whilst the cable companies have been
    well established for a number of years.

    Leaving DTT out of the equation, I can receive literally hundreds of digital
    channels from all over Europe and even America (Panamsat) on a cheap 90
    centimetre motorised system.

    Most supermarkets now sell DTT receivers for as little as £39.00, which are
    pretty well plug-and-play if one lives in an area served by a transmitter,
    although there are a number of areas which won't be upgraded to digital
    until after analogue switch-off.

    As you say for a large number of people it's a cheap and easy way to get a
    load of extra TV and radio channels, especially if their analogue ones have
    previously suffered from multi-path images and grainy pictures, the
    improvement in picture quality of the duplicated main terrestrial channels
    alone is well worth the small outlay.

    As K.B. posted in another thread, some HDTV packages for the UK are planned
    for introduction during the next two or three years, although I strongly
    suspect that these will be will be firstly delivered by digital satellite
    (which is already in over 7 million homes) and cable, and then after the
    analogue switch-off 'maybe' on a replanned DTT Platform.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:2ua9gvF254j8mU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    > news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
    >>
    >> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >>
    >> > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
    > COFDM
    >> > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
    >> > receivers.
    >> >
    >> > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and
    >> > have
    >> > only been in the game for three years.
    >> >
    >> > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
    > only
    >> > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and
    > has
    >> > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold
    > in
    >> > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
    >> > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
    >> >
    >> > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven
    > years.
    >> >
    >> > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
    > both
    >> > due to a subsidy.
    >> >
    >> > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold
    > on
    >> > to your hats, they will do very well.
    >> >
    >> > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
    > 5th
    >> > gen receivers.
    >>
    >>
    >> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
    > comparing
    >> apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the
    > UK
    >> receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in
    > many
    >> of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous
    >> number
    >> of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In
    >> the
    >> United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many
    > years
    >> now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture
    >> quality
    >> improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
    >>
    >> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons
    > are
    >> not so cut and dried.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > The Sky analogue DTH multi-channel system has been running since the 1980s
    > and Sky Digital since the 1990's... whilst the cable companies have been
    > well established for a number of years.
    >
    > Leaving DTT out of the equation, I can receive literally hundreds of
    > digital
    > channels from all over Europe and even America (Panamsat) on a cheap 90
    > centimetre motorised system.


    I guess I've always incorrectly assumed the number of channels in the UK
    were fairly limited as all we ever seem to hear about here in the states are
    the BBC channels and Channel 4.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Charles Tomaras wrote:
    > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >
    >>Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most COFDM
    >>countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
    >>receivers.
    >>
    >>OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
    >>only been in the game for three years.
    >>
    >>Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has only
    >>three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and has
    >>coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold in
    >>a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
    >>households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
    >>
    >>Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.
    >>
    >>Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than both
    >>due to a subsidy.
    >>
    >>France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold on
    >>to your hats, they will do very well.
    >>
    >>The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with 5th
    >>gen receivers.
    >
    >
    >
    > Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are comparing
    > apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the UK
    > receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in many
    > of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous number
    > of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In the
    > United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many years
    > now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture quality
    > improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
    >
    > Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons are
    > not so cut and dried.
    >
    >
    I think ivan answers your question best but a point I would make is that
    even in Berlin they had cable and satellite which both offer more
    channels than the new terrestrial services offer. They even had a higher
    cable and satellite penetration than we do in the US. Berlin had a 95%
    penetration by cable and satellite.

    No the reason that people are buying OTA receivers in large numbers in
    Berlin and the UK is because they are offered 30 free OTA channels for
    the outlay of a few sheckles but more importantly this receiver works
    plug and play.

    Plug and play is the KEY. Inexpensive is also very good. This is why I
    believe we will start finally after seven years to have a real digital
    transition like they are having in Europe and elsewhere. We in the US
    will finally have a receiver that works plug and play.

    We could have the same thing in the US. Many channels are multicasting
    SD programs. There is no mandate for HD. Now that there is a decent
    8-vSB receiver you may see much more of the USDTV type offering. That
    could mean a hundred channels of far better quality than analog OTA in a
    given market.

    If that happens and if 5th gen receivers are in a decent price range
    then you can expect even higher numbers of sales in the US than Europe
    in the next few years.

    I would expect it in fact. I predict three million 5th gen receivers
    sold next year and 15 million the year after, possible twice that
    number. OTA will make and amazing comeback.

    The only problem is that this could have happened in 2000. Why did we
    wait and waste so much money on such a poor modulation, 8-VSB? Why in
    fact are we still doing it?
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >> Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
    >> COFDM countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD
    >> and SD receivers.
    >>
    >> OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
    >> only been in the game for three years.
    >>
    >> Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
    >> only three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM
    >> and has coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million
    >> receivers sold in a country with 20 million households. That suggest that
    >> almost 30% of households in England have digital OTA receivers after only
    >> two years.
    >>
    >> Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.
    >>
    >> Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than both
    >> due to a subsidy.
    >>
    >> France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold on
    >> to your hats, they will do very well.
    >>
    >> The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with 5th
    >> gen receivers.
    >
    >
    > Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
    > comparing apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person
    > from the UK receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be
    > that in many of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a
    > tremendous number of new channels and is being accepted very quickly
    > because of that? In the United States we have had so many channels
    > available to us for so many years now, it's a harder sell for digital
    > merely on the basis of picture quality improvement for the small number
    > (by contrast) of HD available.
    >
    > Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons
    > are not so cut and dried.
    >

    in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which broadcast
    most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
    no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing based
    on my own experience
    foxtel the major cable supplier has recently started transmitting in SD (not
    HD ) and this has promped many to go out and purchase wide screen plasma
    set.
    no tv set sold in oz is equiped with a HD tuner so everyone who buys a
    widescreen tv gets a STB as well so that they can receive SD and HD
    broadcasts
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    news:dImdncu9K8_Xlx3cRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
    >
    > "ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:2ua9gvF254j8mU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > >
    > > "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    > > news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
    > >>
    > >> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > >> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > >>
    > >> > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
    > > COFDM
    > >> > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and
    SD
    > >> > receivers.
    > >> >
    > >> > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and
    > >> > have
    > >> > only been in the game for three years.
    > >> >
    > >> > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
    > > only
    > >> > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM
    and
    > > has
    > >> > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers
    sold
    > > in
    > >> > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
    > >> > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two
    years.
    > >> >
    > >> > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven
    > > years.
    > >> >
    > >> > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
    > > both
    > >> > due to a subsidy.
    > >> >
    > >> > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and
    hold
    > > on
    > >> > to your hats, they will do very well.
    > >> >
    > >> > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
    > > 5th
    > >> > gen receivers.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
    > > comparing
    > >> apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from
    the
    > > UK
    > >> receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in
    > > many
    > >> of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous
    > >> number
    > >> of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In
    > >> the
    > >> United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many
    > > years
    > >> now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture
    > >> quality
    > >> improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
    > >>
    > >> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your
    comparisons
    > > are
    > >> not so cut and dried.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > The Sky analogue DTH multi-channel system has been running since the
    1980s
    > > and Sky Digital since the 1990's... whilst the cable companies have been
    > > well established for a number of years.
    > >
    > > Leaving DTT out of the equation, I can receive literally hundreds of
    > > digital
    > > channels from all over Europe and even America (Panamsat) on a cheap 90
    > > centimetre motorised system.
    >
    >
    > I guess I've always incorrectly assumed the number of channels in the UK
    > were fairly limited as all we ever seem to hear about here in the states
    are
    > the BBC channels and Channel 4.
    >
    >


    Despite the fact of having so many channels to choose from, my bet is that
    the most watched are the five main terrestrial analogue/ digital channels.
    Just as one would imagine that in the US it would be a similar situation,
    i.e. the most-watched channels being the 'long' established networks such as
    NBC, CBS etc.... but then again maybe not?
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    ivan wrote:
    >
    > Despite the fact of having so many channels to choose from, my bet is that
    > the most watched are the five main terrestrial analogue/ digital channels.
    > Just as one would imagine that in the US it would be a similar situation,
    > i.e. the most-watched channels being the 'long' established networks such as
    > NBC, CBS etc.... but then again maybe not?

    For discriminating viewers, the preferred channels are HBO (USA) and
    "The Movie Network (Canada), especially in HDTV.


    C.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > Mark makes my point for me.

    Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.

    > With much less coverage than the US most COFDM
    > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
    > receivers.

    That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
    excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
    only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.

    If people in the UK and Germany think that their SD-only DTV is great, we
    can infer quite a bit about the quality of their analog infrastructure;
    and in particular that it is vastly inferior to the analog infrastructure
    in the US.

    Japan only has HDTV in three cities. I am in frequent communication with
    people in Japan, and what I am getting back is that only a few well-heeled
    individuals are buying HDTV -- just like in the US. Everybody else is
    waiting for the price to come down.

    Australia does not have nationwide HDTV either. It is statisically
    invalid to attempt to make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US.

    -- Mark --

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

    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > The only problem is that this could have happened in 2000. Why did we wait
    > and waste so much money on such a poor modulation, 8-VSB? Why in fact are we
    > still doing it?

    It was done for one reason.

    The Secret 8-VSB Cabel had the goal to destroy the business of one Bob
    Miller in New York City.

    -- Mark --

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

    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > We could have the same thing in the US. Many channels are multicasting SD
    > programs. There is no mandate for HD.

    There we have it, boys and girls. More Bob Miller FUD.

    This guy is truly a creep.

    -- Mark --

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

    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
    > in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which broadcast
    > most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm

    Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?

    In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
    counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
    religious station.

    > no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing based
    > on my own experience

    Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
    local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
    is to get HDTV.

    -- Mark --

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

    Mark Crispin wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >> Mark makes my point for me.
    >
    >
    > Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.
    >
    >> With much less coverage than the US most COFDM countries still have
    >> far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD receivers.
    >
    >
    > That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
    > excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
    > only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.

    No one has offered the US population a digital OTA solution with a plug
    and play receiver so there is no comparison today. Next year there will.
    Next year there will be wireless cable offerings to the US consumer and
    my prediction is that sales in the US with 5th gen receivers will be
    higher in absolute numbers than in the UK by the end of next year and
    higher in percentage terms the next year.

    >
    > If people in the UK and Germany think that their SD-only DTV is great,
    > we can infer quite a bit about the quality of their analog
    > infrastructure; and in particular that it is vastly inferior to the
    > analog infrastructure in the US.

    The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and
    satellite programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming.
    They were not making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital
    receiver they were making a choice to either add to their cable and
    satellite offerings or to drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners depended
    on OTA analog.
    >
    > Japan only has HDTV in three cities. I am in frequent communication
    > with people in Japan, and what I am getting back is that only a few
    > well-heeled individuals are buying HDTV -- just like in the US.
    > Everybody else is waiting for the price to come down.

    Those "few well-heeled individuals" in ONLY THREE CITIES now number
    close to 1.4 million as of the end of September according to my sources.
    Here is a chart of sales thru May 2004. 904,000 from a standing start
    last December.
    http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-2/news-e2.htm
    And as you can see most of these are of INTEGRATED SETS!!!
    >
    > Australia does not have nationwide HDTV either. It is statisically
    > invalid to attempt to make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    > Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US.

    You love to make my point don't you? In fact you are right. It is
    statistically invalid to "make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US".

    Why? Because it hurts my case. I should only compare those "few" cities
    in Australia with coverage to the entire US.

    If it is ONLY a few Australian cities that have DTV broadcast then the
    5% penetration of ALL households in Australia or FIVE times the ONE%
    penetration of OTA DTV receivers in the US, is all the more impressive.
    Your suggestion that only a few Australian cities have DTV suggest that
    the penetration of DTV OTA receivers in those cities is far far higher
    than 5%.

    Would you settle for 30%? Depends on how far you want to go on
    dismissing the NUMBER of cities after all. The fewer the cities the
    higher the penetration rate and the MORE successful the DTV OTA
    transition is in those Australian cities.

    You are real big on trumpeting that the US has better coverage of its
    population by digital broadcast but that means little if NO one is
    buying the receivers. In fact we have higher incomes, more content, have
    been at it for years longer and have better coverage. So why are we such
    a failure at it? All your arguments just prove my point.

    We have had and do have a vastly inferior DTV modulation that has held
    us back in spite of better coverage, a head start, more content and more
    income.

    My point will be conclusively proved when next year when we have our
    first 8-VSB receiver that works we will see an explosive increase of
    sales, business interest and business plans to take advantage of it.

    Bob Miller

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

    Mark Crispin wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >> The only problem is that this could have happened in 2000. Why did we
    >> wait and waste so much money on such a poor modulation, 8-VSB? Why in
    >> fact are we still doing it?
    >
    >
    > It was done for one reason.
    >
    > The Secret 8-VSB Cabel had the goal to destroy the business of one Bob
    > Miller in New York City.

    If it wasn't for the decision to "stay the course with 8-VSB" we would
    have no business plan. Again it is just the opposite of what you think.
    If COFDM had been allowed for all broadcasters we would have had no
    chance to compete. It is only the choice of 8-VSB that has allowed our
    business plan exist.

    It is the digital transition taking so long that hampers our business
    but that will now speed up many times faster than thought possible even
    a few months ago because of the 5th gen receiver.

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

    "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:oGkgd.5525$kM.4633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Mark Crispin wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mark makes my point for me.
    >>
    >>
    >> Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.
    >>
    >>> With much less coverage than the US most COFDM countries still have far
    >>> higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD receivers.
    >>
    >>
    >> That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
    >> excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
    >> only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.
    >
    > No one has offered the US population a digital OTA solution with a plug
    > and play receiver so there is no comparison today. Next year there will.
    > Next year there will be wireless cable offerings to the US consumer and my
    > prediction is that sales in the US with 5th gen receivers will be higher
    > in absolute numbers than in the UK by the end of next year and higher in
    > percentage terms the next year.
    >
    >>
    >> If people in the UK and Germany think that their SD-only DTV is great, we
    >> can infer quite a bit about the quality of their analog infrastructure;
    >> and in particular that it is vastly inferior to the analog infrastructure
    >> in the US.
    >
    > The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and satellite
    > programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming. They were not
    > making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital receiver they were
    > making a choice to either add to their cable and satellite offerings or to
    > drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners depended on OTA analog.
    >>
    >> Japan only has HDTV in three cities. I am in frequent communication with
    >> people in Japan, and what I am getting back is that only a few
    >> well-heeled individuals are buying HDTV -- just like in the US.
    >> Everybody else is waiting for the price to come down.
    >
    > Those "few well-heeled individuals" in ONLY THREE CITIES now number close
    > to 1.4 million as of the end of September according to my sources. Here is
    > a chart of sales thru May 2004. 904,000 from a standing start last
    > December.
    > http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-2/news-e2.htm
    > And as you can see most of these are of INTEGRATED SETS!!!
    >>
    >> Australia does not have nationwide HDTV either. It is statisically
    >> invalid to attempt to make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    >> Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US.
    >
    > You love to make my point don't you? In fact you are right. It is
    > statistically invalid to "make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    > Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US".
    >
    > Why? Because it hurts my case. I should only compare those "few" cities in
    > Australia with coverage to the entire US.
    >
    > If it is ONLY a few Australian cities that have DTV broadcast then the 5%
    > penetration of ALL households in Australia or FIVE times the ONE%
    > penetration of OTA DTV receivers in the US, is all the more impressive.
    > Your suggestion that only a few Australian cities have DTV suggest that
    > the penetration of DTV OTA receivers in those cities is far far higher
    > than 5%.
    >
    > Would you settle for 30%? Depends on how far you want to go on dismissing
    > the NUMBER of cities after all. The fewer the cities the higher the
    > penetration rate and the MORE successful the DTV OTA transition is in
    > those Australian cities.
    >
    > You are real big on trumpeting that the US has better coverage of its
    > population by digital broadcast but that means little if NO one is buying
    > the receivers. In fact we have higher incomes, more content, have been at
    > it for years longer and have better coverage. So why are we such a failure
    > at it? All your arguments just prove my point.
    >
    > We have had and do have a vastly inferior DTV modulation that has held us
    > back in spite of better coverage, a head start, more content and more
    > income.
    >
    > My point will be conclusively proved when next year when we have our first
    > 8-VSB receiver that works we will see an explosive increase of sales,
    > business interest and business plans to take advantage of it.
    >
    > Bob Miller

    How about next year when more mature hardware hits the street at more
    affordable prices. Mature hardware + lower prices + significant HDTV
    programming = increased sales. It has nothing to do with broadcast
    modulation (which works fine by the way).

    Richard.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    In article <oGkgd.5525$kM.4633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
    > Mark Crispin wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mark makes my point for me.
    >>
    >>
    >> Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.
    >>
    >>> With much less coverage than the US most COFDM countries still have
    >>> far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD receivers.
    >>
    >>
    >> That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
    >> excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
    >> only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.
    >
    > No one has offered the US population a digital OTA solution with a plug
    > and play receiver so there is no comparison today. Next year there will.
    >
    Yes, It is clear that 8VSB would eventually provide better performance
    with the 5th generation receivers (the only difference between my public
    evaluation and reality has been which generation that would become oblivious
    to body fade and dynamic multipath -- except in the most severe cases.)

    The most severe cases are exactly those cases that are destructive to HDTV
    itself (i.e. SDTV in moving vehicles, most likely to be used in
    non-optional display of advertising and push information, mostly disturbing
    the peace, while Bob profits.)

    I remember certain individuals who continue to condemn or overly
    criticize 8VSB, yet it attains practically all goals (and more) for
    fixed SDTV/HDTV reception, with an SNR advantage for distance (big
    stick) applications. Whether or not someone likes 'big stick', that
    is the current OTA broadcast infrastructure, and is not likely to
    change until HDTV goes OTA/RF-silent (everyone uses broadband/fiber
    (or perhaps satellite given major advances in local origination of HDTV
    over satellite), even those in the fringe areas for free reception for
    locally originated material.) Even though alot of stations are going
    to a more central (less local) origination of material, there is still
    the need for local material, whether or not it is centrally distributed.

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

    > The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and
    > satellite programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming.
    > They were not making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital
    > receiver they were making a choice to either add to their cable and
    > satellite offerings or to drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners
    > depended
    > on OTA analog.


    This is a total lie. There is no HD in UK or Germany except for HD1
    which is from Belgium on satellite with programming mostly taken from
    US. This has absolutely nothing to do with 8VSB or COFDM so why even
    make up a lie like this.

    Other than that in 2005 they may have 3 or 4 HD channels only on
    satellite. There are no plans for OTA. The earliest OTA HD in Germany
    or UK can be expected in 2010.


    --
    CKNA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by CKNA
  29. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
    news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
    >> in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
    >> broadcast
    >> most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
    >
    > Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?

    DTV is broadcast 24/7 but not in HD or SD format
    sports events over weekends are in HD/SD widescreen

    >
    > In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
    > counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
    > religious station.
    >
    >> no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
    >> based
    >> on my own experience
    >
    > Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
    > local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
    > is to get HDTV.
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >
    > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    > Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Richard wrote:
    > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:oGkgd.5525$kM.4633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >>Mark Crispin wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Mark makes my point for me.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>With much less coverage than the US most COFDM countries still have far
    >>>>higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD receivers.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
    >>>excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
    >>>only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.
    >>
    >>No one has offered the US population a digital OTA solution with a plug
    >>and play receiver so there is no comparison today. Next year there will.
    >>Next year there will be wireless cable offerings to the US consumer and my
    >>prediction is that sales in the US with 5th gen receivers will be higher
    >>in absolute numbers than in the UK by the end of next year and higher in
    >>percentage terms the next year.
    >>
    >>
    >>>If people in the UK and Germany think that their SD-only DTV is great, we
    >>>can infer quite a bit about the quality of their analog infrastructure;
    >>>and in particular that it is vastly inferior to the analog infrastructure
    >>>in the US.
    >>
    >>The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and satellite
    >>programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming. They were not
    >>making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital receiver they were
    >>making a choice to either add to their cable and satellite offerings or to
    >>drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners depended on OTA analog.
    >>
    >>>Japan only has HDTV in three cities. I am in frequent communication with
    >>>people in Japan, and what I am getting back is that only a few
    >>>well-heeled individuals are buying HDTV -- just like in the US.
    >>>Everybody else is waiting for the price to come down.
    >>
    >>Those "few well-heeled individuals" in ONLY THREE CITIES now number close
    >>to 1.4 million as of the end of September according to my sources. Here is
    >>a chart of sales thru May 2004. 904,000 from a standing start last
    >>December.
    >>http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-2/news-e2.htm
    >>And as you can see most of these are of INTEGRATED SETS!!!
    >>
    >>>Australia does not have nationwide HDTV either. It is statisically
    >>>invalid to attempt to make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    >>>Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US.
    >>
    >>You love to make my point don't you? In fact you are right. It is
    >>statistically invalid to "make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    >> Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US".
    >>
    >>Why? Because it hurts my case. I should only compare those "few" cities in
    >>Australia with coverage to the entire US.
    >>
    >>If it is ONLY a few Australian cities that have DTV broadcast then the 5%
    >>penetration of ALL households in Australia or FIVE times the ONE%
    >>penetration of OTA DTV receivers in the US, is all the more impressive.
    >>Your suggestion that only a few Australian cities have DTV suggest that
    >>the penetration of DTV OTA receivers in those cities is far far higher
    >>than 5%.
    >>
    >>Would you settle for 30%? Depends on how far you want to go on dismissing
    >>the NUMBER of cities after all. The fewer the cities the higher the
    >>penetration rate and the MORE successful the DTV OTA transition is in
    >>those Australian cities.
    >>
    >>You are real big on trumpeting that the US has better coverage of its
    >>population by digital broadcast but that means little if NO one is buying
    >>the receivers. In fact we have higher incomes, more content, have been at
    >>it for years longer and have better coverage. So why are we such a failure
    >>at it? All your arguments just prove my point.
    >>
    >>We have had and do have a vastly inferior DTV modulation that has held us
    >>back in spite of better coverage, a head start, more content and more
    >>income.
    >>
    >>My point will be conclusively proved when next year when we have our first
    >>8-VSB receiver that works we will see an explosive increase of sales,
    >>business interest and business plans to take advantage of it.
    >>
    >>Bob Miller
    >
    >
    > How about next year when more mature hardware hits the street at more
    > affordable prices. Mature hardware + lower prices + significant HDTV
    > programming = increased sales. It has nothing to do with broadcast
    > modulation (which works fine by the way).
    >
    > Richard.
    >
    >
    But it doesn't work fine. That is why most retailers have few or no
    receivers for sale and why they do no advertising. It is why
    broadcasters have no business plan for DTV and focus on must carry. And
    it is why the FCC felt forced to MANDATE receivers in DTV sets.

    NONE of which has had any affect.

    The 5th gen receivers will come to market with big advertising budgets
    for the first time. Broadcasters who have heard or have tested these
    receivers are starting to pay attention to OTA broadcasting for the
    first time in decades. The Emmis proposal is one example. And there will
    be any number of other ventures like USDTV that will be viable now.

    BTW you are one of the few who thinks 8-VSB works fine. The MSTV test of
    2000 had everyone agreeing that 8-VSB was in very bad shape. The only
    difficulty was that we were promised a fix in six months at the time but
    it has been four LONG year.

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

    CKNA wrote:
    >> The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and
    >>satellite programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming.
    >>They were not making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital
    >>receiver they were making a choice to either add to their cable and
    >>satellite offerings or to drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners
    >>depended
    >>on OTA analog.
    >
    >
    >
    > This is a total lie. There is no HD in UK or Germany except for HD1
    > which is from Belgium on satellite with programming mostly taken from
    > US. This has absolutely nothing to do with 8VSB or COFDM so why even
    > make up a lie like this.
    >
    > Other than that in 2005 they may have 3 or 4 HD channels only on
    > satellite. There are no plans for OTA. The earliest OTA HD in Germany
    > or UK can be expected in 2010.
    >
    >
    Sorry didn't mean it that way. Rephrased, "The people in the UK and
    Germany have a wide choice of cable and satellite programming with HD
    being offered by satellite now and a lot more coming.
    Bob Miller

    BTW France will have OTA HD in 2005. The UK and Germany may have it well
    before 2010 IMO but we will see.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > If it wasn't for the decision to "stay the course with 8-VSB" we would have
    > no business plan. Again it is just the opposite of what you think. If COFDM
    > had been allowed for all broadcasters we would have had no chance to compete.
    > It is only the choice of 8-VSB that has allowed our business plan exist.

    Then what are you bitching about?

    It's obvious that you are a liar.

    -- Mark --

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

    On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > I believe that our current 8-VSB modulation is third rate, of poor design and
    > not the best for the country.

    Nobody cares what you think. You are a proven crackpot who not only uses
    sock-puppets, but by your own admission even used your own daughter's
    account to post on a forum after you were ejected.

    > IMO broadcasters will be given the right
    > to switch to COFDM when such competition becomes widespread anyway.

    I have $1000 that says that it will not happen.

    > My main problem is with a government that is controlled by big business.

    If you don't like it, then leave.

    > The
    > way around the problem will be to do exactly what Sinclair advocated in the
    > first place, allow COFDM not switch to COFDM.

    Once again with mentioning Sinclair. That company has so thoroughly
    discredited itself with its nonsense over that anti-Kerry film -- and I'm
    a Republican! -- that nobody cares what it advocates.

    > They will make it sound like a
    > trivial matter but it will instantly obsolete every 8-VSB receiver sold.
    > And the FCC will accommodate, Democrat or Republican, in a heartbeat.

    I have $5000 that says that will not happen.

    -- Mark --

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

    Mark Crispin wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >
    >> If it wasn't for the decision to "stay the course with 8-VSB" we would
    >> have no business plan. Again it is just the opposite of what you
    >> think. If COFDM had been allowed for all broadcasters we would have
    >> had no chance to compete. It is only the choice of 8-VSB that has
    >> allowed our business plan exist.
    >
    >
    > Then what are you bitching about?

    Is it possible in your world for someone to "bitch" about something they
    believe to be wrong even if that something that is wrong happens to
    benefit them? If someone attacks that which they see as wrong they must
    therefore be a "liar" because it is obvious?

    Senator Kerry is for re-raising taxes on the rich even though this would
    negatively affect him. This makes him "obviously" a liar? It is pretty
    "obvious" to me and 99.9% of Republicans that he is indeed serious. But
    to you the simple fact that he advocates something that is detrimental
    to his bottom line makes him a "liar" and it is "obvious" to you.

    I pity the world you believe in (and "obviously" live in).

    I believe that our current 8-VSB modulation is third rate, of poor
    design and not the best for the country. The simple fact is that since
    broadcasters are stuck with it and therefore cannot address both fixed
    receivers and mobile ones at the same time they cannot compete in the
    coming mobile/fixed video market. If they had been allowed to use COFDM
    we simply would not be able to compete since all DTV broadcast would be
    receivable mobile. As it us we will have little competition initially.
    IMO broadcasters will be given the right to switch to COFDM when such
    competition becomes widespread anyway.

    My main problem is with a government that is controlled by big business.
    When it suits them they are willing and able to saddle the public with
    an unworkable DTV modulation to delay an expensive digital transition
    they do not understand and the competition that will come with it. And
    when it suits them, when competition does rear its ugly head, they will
    engineer a change in modulation so that they can compete without regard
    to the number of 8-VSB receivers that will be made obsolete.

    When this began the argument that making a relatively few 8-VSB
    receivers obsolete was reason enough to "stay the course" with 8-VSB.
    When it suits them a much larger number of 8-VSB receivers will be
    deemed irrelevant. The way around the problem will be to do exactly what
    Sinclair advocated in the first place, allow COFDM not switch to COFDM.
    They will make it sound like a trivial matter but it will instantly
    obsolete every 8-VSB receiver sold.

    And the FCC will accommodate, Democrat or Republican, in a heartbeat.

    Bob Miller
    >
    > It's obvious that you are a liar.
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >
    > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    > Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
    news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0410301510300.18194@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
    > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    > > I believe that our current 8-VSB modulation is third rate, of poor
    design and
    > > not the best for the country.
    >
    > Nobody cares what you think. You are a proven crackpot who not only uses
    > sock-puppets, but by your own admission even used your own daughter's
    > account to post on a forum after you were ejected.
    >
    > > IMO broadcasters will be given the right
    > > to switch to COFDM when such competition becomes widespread anyway.
    >
    > I have $1000 that says that it will not happen.
    >
    > > My main problem is with a government that is controlled by big business.
    >
    > If you don't like it, then leave.
    >
    > > The
    > > way around the problem will be to do exactly what Sinclair advocated in
    the
    > > first place, allow COFDM not switch to COFDM.
    >
    > Once again with mentioning Sinclair. That company has so thoroughly
    > discredited itself with its nonsense over that anti-Kerry film -- and I'm
    > a Republican! -- that nobody cares what it advocates.
    >
    > > They will make it sound like a
    > > trivial matter but it will instantly obsolete every 8-VSB receiver sold.
    > > And the FCC will accommodate, Democrat or Republican, in a heartbeat.
    >

    I think Bob is 100 per cent correct, it's nothing that is specific to
    America, but something that applies to politicians the world over,
    legislating, and mandating about technological issues they understand
    absolutely 'FA' about, and in the case of the UK making multi-billion pound
    windfalls out of selling off chunks of valuable spectrum.


    > I have $5000 that says that will not happen.
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >
    > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    > Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:Iuygd.11018$KJ6.10484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Richard wrote:
    >> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >> news:oGkgd.5525$kM.4633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >>
    >>>Mark Crispin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Mark makes my point for me.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>With much less coverage than the US most COFDM countries still have far
    >>>>>higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD receivers.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
    >>>>excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
    >>>>only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.
    >>>
    >>>No one has offered the US population a digital OTA solution with a plug
    >>>and play receiver so there is no comparison today. Next year there will.
    >>>Next year there will be wireless cable offerings to the US consumer and
    >>>my prediction is that sales in the US with 5th gen receivers will be
    >>>higher in absolute numbers than in the UK by the end of next year and
    >>>higher in percentage terms the next year.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>If people in the UK and Germany think that their SD-only DTV is great,
    >>>>we can infer quite a bit about the quality of their analog
    >>>>infrastructure; and in particular that it is vastly inferior to the
    >>>>analog infrastructure in the US.
    >>>
    >>>The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and
    >>>satellite programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming.
    >>>They were not making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital
    >>>receiver they were making a choice to either add to their cable and
    >>>satellite offerings or to drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners depended
    >>>on OTA analog.
    >>>
    >>>>Japan only has HDTV in three cities. I am in frequent communication
    >>>>with people in Japan, and what I am getting back is that only a few
    >>>>well-heeled individuals are buying HDTV -- just like in the US.
    >>>>Everybody else is waiting for the price to come down.
    >>>
    >>>Those "few well-heeled individuals" in ONLY THREE CITIES now number close
    >>>to 1.4 million as of the end of September according to my sources. Here
    >>>is a chart of sales thru May 2004. 904,000 from a standing start last
    >>>December.
    >>>http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-2/news-e2.htm
    >>>And as you can see most of these are of INTEGRATED SETS!!!
    >>>
    >>>>Australia does not have nationwide HDTV either. It is statisically
    >>>>invalid to attempt to make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    >>>>Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US.
    >>>
    >>>You love to make my point don't you? In fact you are right. It is
    >>>statistically invalid to "make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
    >>> Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US".
    >>>
    >>>Why? Because it hurts my case. I should only compare those "few" cities
    >>>in Australia with coverage to the entire US.
    >>>
    >>>If it is ONLY a few Australian cities that have DTV broadcast then the 5%
    >>>penetration of ALL households in Australia or FIVE times the ONE%
    >>>penetration of OTA DTV receivers in the US, is all the more impressive.
    >>>Your suggestion that only a few Australian cities have DTV suggest that
    >>>the penetration of DTV OTA receivers in those cities is far far higher
    >>>than 5%.
    >>>
    >>>Would you settle for 30%? Depends on how far you want to go on dismissing
    >>>the NUMBER of cities after all. The fewer the cities the higher the
    >>>penetration rate and the MORE successful the DTV OTA transition is in
    >>>those Australian cities.
    >>>
    >>>You are real big on trumpeting that the US has better coverage of its
    >>>population by digital broadcast but that means little if NO one is buying
    >>>the receivers. In fact we have higher incomes, more content, have been at
    >>>it for years longer and have better coverage. So why are we such a
    >>>failure at it? All your arguments just prove my point.
    >>>
    >>>We have had and do have a vastly inferior DTV modulation that has held us
    >>>back in spite of better coverage, a head start, more content and more
    >>>income.
    >>>
    >>>My point will be conclusively proved when next year when we have our
    >>>first 8-VSB receiver that works we will see an explosive increase of
    >>>sales, business interest and business plans to take advantage of it.
    >>>
    >>>Bob Miller
    >>
    >>
    >> How about next year when more mature hardware hits the street at more
    >> affordable prices. Mature hardware + lower prices + significant HDTV
    >> programming = increased sales. It has nothing to do with broadcast
    >> modulation (which works fine by the way).
    >>
    >> Richard.
    > But it doesn't work fine. That is why most retailers have few or no
    > receivers for sale and why they do no advertising. It is why broadcasters
    > have no business plan for DTV and focus on must carry. And it is why the
    > FCC felt forced to MANDATE receivers in DTV sets.
    >
    > NONE of which has had any affect.
    >
    > The 5th gen receivers will come to market with big advertising budgets for
    > the first time. Broadcasters who have heard or have tested these receivers
    > are starting to pay attention to OTA broadcasting for the first time in
    > decades. The Emmis proposal is one example. And there will be any number
    > of other ventures like USDTV that will be viable now.
    >
    > BTW you are one of the few who thinks 8-VSB works fine. The MSTV test of
    > 2000 had everyone agreeing that 8-VSB was in very bad shape. The only
    > difficulty was that we were promised a fix in six months at the time but
    > it has been four LONG year.
    >
    > Bob Miller

    Just back from my friend's house with his new 34 inch Sony integrated HDTV
    set. The Sony integrated tuner pulled in all local digital stations to
    perfection with a basic interior antenna. TW's basic cable also worked to
    perfection through this integrated tuner. Same story with several other
    locals I have assisted with their new sets.

    Richard.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    No we have 24/7 DTV at both SD and HD. General HD is just upconverted SD.

    Only after 6pm when the viewing numbers are at there greatest do the
    stations transmit HD source material eg CSI etc etc.

    As for the number of cities that transmit DTV, all capital cities in
    Australia transmit DTV and now they are starting on delivering DTV to the
    country areas.

    If you would like to see where this is at try the follow web site
    www.dba.org.au


    "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
    news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
    > > in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
    broadcast
    > > most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
    >
    > Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?
    >
    > In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
    > counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
    > religious station.
    >
    > > no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
    based
    > > on my own experience
    >
    > Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
    > local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
    > is to get HDTV.
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >
    > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    > Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    Anthony Preston wrote:
    > No we have 24/7 DTV at both SD and HD. General HD is just upconverted SD.
    >
    > Only after 6pm when the viewing numbers are at there greatest do the
    > stations transmit HD source material eg CSI etc etc.
    >
    > As for the number of cities that transmit DTV, all capital cities in
    > Australia transmit DTV and now they are starting on delivering DTV to the
    > country areas.
    >
    > If you would like to see where this is at try the follow web site
    > www.dba.org.au

    What Mark wants to know Anthony is what percentage of OZ citizens are
    actually covered by a digital TV signal.

    That is the important thing to Mark. If the US had 80% coverage of its
    citizens and OZ only covers 70% then OZ is a loser even though OZ only
    has been at it for 2.5 years while we have been at it for over 6 years
    and even though OZ will have 7.8% of its households with a digital
    receiver by the end of the year while the US will be lucky if we have 1%.

    From http://www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#PRODUCT1

    "At an average of 35,000 receivers sold per month, there are expected to
    be more than 600,000 digital television homes by the end of 2004. This
    represents 7.7% of Australia's 7.8 million homes."

    Also according to the article OZ will have 600,000 receivers sold (in
    homes not dealerships or gathering dust in TV stations) by the end of
    the year and it could go higher. At that rate, the US being 14.5 times
    bigger than OZ population wise, the US would have had 8.7 million
    receivers sold after the first 2.5 years and who knows how many after
    the seven we have been at it.

    So if you can, I can't find it, could you let us know, Mark in
    particular, what percentage of the population of OZ could receive a
    digital TV signal if they put up a little antenna?

    Bob Miller
    >
    >
    > "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
    > news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
    >
    >>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
    >>
    >>>in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
    >
    > broadcast
    >
    >>>most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
    >>
    >>Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?
    >>
    >>In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
    >>counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
    >>religious station.
    >>
    >>
    >>>no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
    >
    > based
    >
    >>>on my own experience
    >>
    >>Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
    >>local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
    >>is to get HDTV.
    >>
    >>-- Mark --
    >>
    >>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    >>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    >>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
    >
    >
    >
  39. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    the vast majority of the 20 million australian population live in the 5
    major cities and surrounding areas or smaller cities ie newcastle,w'gong so
    maybe 75% would be in a position to receive DTV

    "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:pcOhd.15378$KJ6.12346@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Anthony Preston wrote:
    >> No we have 24/7 DTV at both SD and HD. General HD is just upconverted SD.
    >>
    >> Only after 6pm when the viewing numbers are at there greatest do the
    >> stations transmit HD source material eg CSI etc etc.
    >>
    >> As for the number of cities that transmit DTV, all capital cities in
    >> Australia transmit DTV and now they are starting on delivering DTV to the
    >> country areas.
    >>
    >> If you would like to see where this is at try the follow web site
    >> www.dba.org.au
    >
    > What Mark wants to know Anthony is what percentage of OZ citizens are
    > actually covered by a digital TV signal.
    >
    > That is the important thing to Mark. If the US had 80% coverage of its
    > citizens and OZ only covers 70% then OZ is a loser even though OZ only has
    > been at it for 2.5 years while we have been at it for over 6 years and
    > even though OZ will have 7.8% of its households with a digital receiver
    > by the end of the year while the US will be lucky if we have 1%.
    >
    > From http://www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#PRODUCT1
    >
    > "At an average of 35,000 receivers sold per month, there are expected to
    > be more than 600,000 digital television homes by the end of 2004. This
    > represents 7.7% of Australia's 7.8 million homes."
    >
    > Also according to the article OZ will have 600,000 receivers sold (in
    > homes not dealerships or gathering dust in TV stations) by the end of the
    > year and it could go higher. At that rate, the US being 14.5 times bigger
    > than OZ population wise, the US would have had 8.7 million receivers sold
    > after the first 2.5 years and who knows how many after the seven we have
    > been at it.
    >
    > So if you can, I can't find it, could you let us know, Mark in particular,
    > what percentage of the population of OZ could receive a digital TV signal
    > if they put up a little antenna?
    >
    > Bob Miller
    >>
    >>
    >> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
    >> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
    >>
    >> broadcast
    >>
    >>>>most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
    >>>
    >>>Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?
    >>>
    >>>In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
    >>>counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
    >>>religious station.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
    >>
    >> based
    >>
    >>>>on my own experience
    >>>
    >>>Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
    >>>local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
    >>>is to get HDTV.
    >>>
    >>>-- Mark --
    >>>
    >>>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    >>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    >>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
    >>
    >>
  40. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

    slalomguy wrote:
    > the vast majority of the 20 million australian population live in the 5
    > major cities and surrounding areas or smaller cities ie newcastle,w'gong so
    > maybe 75% would be in a position to receive DTV

    Thank you slalomguy, now does anyone have a percentage of US consumers
    who have access to an HDTV broadcast? I know that on a land area basis,
    non population , that 30% of the land area of the US depends on digital
    translators stations and there are no digital translators operating yet
    in the US. OZ is busy setting up the opposite of translators or what you
    could call NON translator stations. They are using one of the unique
    features of COFDM, the ability to rebroadcast on-channel which obviates
    the need for translators which are in essence another station on another
    frequency (wasted) being used to rebroadcast a parent station.

    One sticky wicket with those digital translators the US needs for the 30
    % of land area, there are no frequencies available for those needed
    translators till after the transition. Oops!! It is times like these
    that try men's souls. If only we had COFDM and the ability to do
    on-channel repeaters.

    It is claimed by some that 8-VSB will be able to do on channel repeating
    also someday. Some even claim today. I have yet to here of a successful
    on-channel repeater in use with 8-VSB. That is one that is not hiding
    behind a mountain or something.

    Can 75% of the US population receive an HD OTA signal today? What % of
    stations in the US are at low power? What % are not passing thru HD?

    Are we up to the standards of OZ? Do we measure up? We know they have at
    least 7 times the number of DTV receivers as the US does based on
    percentage of population. What are the numbers for coverage?

    OH!! Almost forgot. In measuring OZ all stations are HD since it is
    MANDATED there. In the US you have to check to see if the digital
    station is actually transmitting HD since they don't have to now or ever.

    So if half of US stations are at half power and 30% of the US land area
    can't get a digital signal because there are no translators up and
    running and some percentage of DTV stations on the air are not passing
    any HD, what are the facts Jack??

    Don't look now but Japan will pass us like we are standing still soon on
    HDTV.

    Of course we can always have the satisfaction that we have more 500 Watt
    transmitters on the air capable of HD even if there is no one watching
    OTA and even if the broadcasters don't bother to actually deliver HD. It
    is after all the number of HD capable transmitters that count. (gasp, gasp)

    Of course then, if you want to count all US DTV transmitters, even if
    they are not broadcasting HD and if you want to be fair you would have
    to count ALL COFDM transmitters in the world because they are ALL
    supremely capable of delivering HD.

    Bob Miller
    >
    > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:pcOhd.15378$KJ6.12346@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >>Anthony Preston wrote:
    >>
    >>>No we have 24/7 DTV at both SD and HD. General HD is just upconverted SD.
    >>>
    >>>Only after 6pm when the viewing numbers are at there greatest do the
    >>>stations transmit HD source material eg CSI etc etc.
    >>>
    >>>As for the number of cities that transmit DTV, all capital cities in
    >>>Australia transmit DTV and now they are starting on delivering DTV to the
    >>>country areas.
    >>>
    >>>If you would like to see where this is at try the follow web site
    >>>www.dba.org.au
    >>
    >>What Mark wants to know Anthony is what percentage of OZ citizens are
    >>actually covered by a digital TV signal.
    >>
    >>That is the important thing to Mark. If the US had 80% coverage of its
    >>citizens and OZ only covers 70% then OZ is a loser even though OZ only has
    >>been at it for 2.5 years while we have been at it for over 6 years and
    >>even though OZ will have 7.8% of its households with a digital receiver
    >>by the end of the year while the US will be lucky if we have 1%.
    >>
    >>From http://www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#PRODUCT1
    >>
    >>"At an average of 35,000 receivers sold per month, there are expected to
    >>be more than 600,000 digital television homes by the end of 2004. This
    >>represents 7.7% of Australia's 7.8 million homes."
    >>
    >>Also according to the article OZ will have 600,000 receivers sold (in
    >>homes not dealerships or gathering dust in TV stations) by the end of the
    >>year and it could go higher. At that rate, the US being 14.5 times bigger
    >>than OZ population wise, the US would have had 8.7 million receivers sold
    >>after the first 2.5 years and who knows how many after the seven we have
    >>been at it.
    >>
    >>So if you can, I can't find it, could you let us know, Mark in particular,
    >>what percentage of the population of OZ could receive a digital TV signal
    >>if they put up a little antenna?
    >>
    >>Bob Miller
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
    >>>news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
    >>>
    >>>broadcast
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
    >>>>
    >>>>Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?
    >>>>
    >>>>In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
    >>>>counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
    >>>>religious station.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
    >>>
    >>>based
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>on my own experience
    >>>>
    >>>>Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
    >>>>local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
    >>>>is to get HDTV.
    >>>>
    >>>>-- Mark --
    >>>>
    >>>>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    >>>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    >>>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
    >>>
    >>>
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV Digital TV Home Theatre