Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ebay may be where you want to buy your integrated HDTV

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 9:56:26 PM

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

Public evading 8-VSB mandate in droves. Funny the opposite is happening
in Japan where they are selling integrated HDTV sets like crazy even
though they only have three cities broadcasting OTA HDTV. Who wouda thought?

This will turn around once integrated 8-VSB units have 5th gen receivers.

Bob Miller

BTW I told ya so. As the article says the FCC can mandate to
manufacturers but not to retailers and so far not to the public. You
can't force the public to buy. Just when you need Ascroft he goes and
resigns. What you goin to do???

From TVTechnology:

Date posted: 2004-11-12

Tuner Mandate Loses Steam in the Real World

In yet another splendid example of how government policy reflects actual
human behavior, the FCC's tuner mandate is causing tuner-integrated sets
to not sell like hotcakes. Consequently, the consumer electronics
lobbies asked the FCC if it could please make the phase-in part of the
mandate go away.


In a cleverly worded statement that makes it appear as if they want a
faster digital transition, the Consumer Electronics Association and the
Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition asked the FCC to ditch the
half-way point for phasing digital tuners into mid-sized TV sets.


"CEA and CERC requested that the 100-percent deadline for DTV tuners in
television screen sizes 25 to 36 inches be accelerated to March 1, 2006,
thereby speeding the consumer migration to DTV," stated a release from
the two groups.


The current deadline is July 1, 2006, but the half-way point--when 50
percent of sets that size have to have DTV tuners--is a year earlier.
Less than five months into the 50-percent phase-in for big-screen TVs,
the CEA is having nightmares about what the same process will do to the
category of sets that comprise the bulk of all TV sales.


As of last July 1, half of all 36-inch and larger TV sets with
over-the-air analog reception and/or CableCARD slots also had to have
over-the-air digital reception, aka ATSC capability. The CableCARD/ATSC
combo added $300 premium to the price of those sets, so guess what the
big retailers ordered by the truckload for the holidays?


Retailers appear to favor the cheaper non-ATSC sets by about
three-to-one over those mandated by the DTV tuner phase-in, based on
highly scientific numbers derived from Mark's Monday Memo. The Memo,
compiled by New York-based television expert Mark Schubin, tracks ads
for TV sales across the country. Since July, about 24 percent of the
so-sized sets in stores have included ATSC reception. (The average
number of ads for 36-inch and larger sets was 86; an average of 21 of
them had ATSC reception.)


Part of the problem is that the FCC is not the boss of Circuit City or
Wal-Mart. It can only strong-arm manufacturers into turning out
ATSC-capable sets; it can't force anyone to buy them. And retailers buy
what consumers buy, and consumers unfailingly buy the A) biggest thing,
at B) the lowest price.


It's one thing to stack up a 50-inch Hitachi widescreen LCD projection
set at $3299.97 against the very same set, only sans an ATSC tuner, for
$2999.97. It's another thing to tack $300 onto sets that retail in the
$500 neighborhood.


"CERC believes the proposed modification will eliminate the unintended
consequences of the Commission's 50 percent requirements that became
apparent only recently, but threaten to impede the DTV transition," said
CERC Executive Director Marc Pearl. "In practice, the 50-percent
requirement has proven to be unduly disruptive. It creates an artificial
scarcity of products without tuners, providing an incentive for
retailers to assure their supplies of these non-tuner products. This is
the opposite result from the one sought by the commission, and by
retailers, as a matter of public policy. Accelerating the100 percent
obligation would eliminate that situation."


Translation: getting rid of the 50-percent obligation would help
retailers and manufacturers unload their current inventory somewhere
besides eBay.
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 9:56:27 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

All of bob's blather is:

> based on
> highly scientific numbers derived from Mark's Monday Memo.

So there is no reason to read it.

Matthew
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 9:37:43 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message news:<10pa2q27riouv40@corp.supernews.com>...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
> All of bob's blather is:
>
> > based on
> > highly scientific numbers derived from Mark's Monday Memo.
>
> So there is no reason to read it.
>
> Matthew


You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found
it quite interesting. Many of us thought the FCC's mandate to force
ATSC tuners into sets, where most of them will never be used, was
foolish and wasteful. Now, it appears the chickens have come home to
roost.

The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin
with. This did little to make HD happen for most people, and put an
unwarranted burden on financial consumers. So, is it any wonder
consumers are buying the cheaper, non ATSC sets? This is like the
govt telling Dell that they must ship PCs with DVD drives when they
cost $300 bucks, instead of when it made economic and business sense.

And perhaps that is a poor analogy, because the DVD drive is more
useful to more people than the ATSC tuner ever will be. The vast
majority who will be viewing HD already have either cable or sat, both
of which render the built-in ATSC tuner useless.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 3:05:30 PM

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

Chet Hayes wrote:

> The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin
> with.

Quite the opposite. The FCC should have mandated cable ready ATSC tuners
day one.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 7:26:01 PM

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

Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found
> it quite interesting.

The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank screen
would be "quite interesting" to you.

Since *only* 36" TVs with NTSC tuners are required to have ATSC tuners,
it's no surprise that they don't sell well, since those sets are by far
in the minority.

Above 36", the market is dominated by displays with *no* tuner at all, like
plasma (and this is especially true in the retail world, because of the
high margins on these displays). There are almost *no* displays of *any*
kind at 36", because manufacturers have decided that the 16:9 CRT size is
34". There are only a few 36" 4:3 HDTVs of any kind.

> So, is it any wonder
> consumers are buying the cheaper, non ATSC sets?

In reality, consumers are buying the more expensive no tuner displays. If
the 16:9 world was dominated by 36" sets instead of 34" sets, displays
with tuners would be flying off the shelves.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Understaffed.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 10:24:21 PM

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

Chet Hayes gave some good reasons why ATSC tuners should not be mandated
in every TV set as did the TVTechnology article.

It is so refreshing to see Matthews reasoned response. You get to see
the gears working.

Matthew thinks that everyone should have to buy something they don't
want and will never use so that 15% don't have to think when they make a
purchase.

He believes that is the purpose of government to force purchases of junk
technology by the public at the request of special interest.

I personally believe in less government, less intrusion into what I buy
not more. In the case of the ATSC tuner mandate it is bad policy as well
as a rip off of the public. It doesn't and obviously from the article
isn't helping the digital TV transition.

But maybe Matthews reasoned arguments will win the day.

Bob Miller

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Chet Hayes wrote:
>
>> The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin
>> with.
>
>
> Quite the opposite. The FCC should have mandated cable ready ATSC tuners
> day one.
>
> Matthew
>
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 5:32:49 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Chet Hayes gave some good reasons why ATSC tuners should not be
> mandated in every TV set as did the TVTechnology article.
>
> It is so refreshing to see Matthews reasoned response. You get to see
> the gears working.
>
> Matthew thinks that everyone should have to buy something they don't
> want and will never use so that 15% don't have to think when they
> make a purchase.
>
> He believes that is the purpose of government to force purchases of
> junk technology by the public at the request of special interest.
>
> I personally believe in less government, less intrusion into what I
> buy not more. In the case of the ATSC tuner mandate it is bad policy
> as well as a rip off of the public. It doesn't and obviously from the
> article isn't helping the digital TV transition.
>
> But maybe Matthews reasoned arguments will win the day.

In that sense, there should be no mandates about any tuners in TV's at all.
Not a bad idea, actually. Many people never use them.

>
> Bob Miller
>
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>> Chet Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin
>>> with.
>>
>>
>> Quite the opposite. The FCC should have mandated cable ready ATSC
>> tuners day one.
>>
>> Matthew
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 10:01:18 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c0045f5658033db9898f6@news.nabs.net>...
> Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found
> > it quite interesting.
>
> The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank screen
> would be "quite interesting" to you.
>
> Since *only* 36" TVs with NTSC tuners are required to have ATSC tuners,
> it's no surprise that they don't sell well, since those sets are by far
> in the minority.
>
>

If you followed Bob's post, the comparison was made for the same size
sets sold with and without the built in tuner. Everyone knows that
smaller sets outsell larger ones, that isn't the issue. The issue is
it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's
$300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use
because they have cable or sat.

This is exactly what many of us expected to happen. And it appears
the manufacturer's clever solution, which appears to have gone by some
of you, is to pull in the 100% phase in dates so that consumers will
have to eat the higher cost without recourse. BTW, what ever happened
to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
roll in at no noticeable cost?



Above 36", the market is dominated by displays with *no* tuner at
all, like
> plasma (and this is especially true in the retail world, because of the
> high margins on these displays). There are almost *no* displays of *any*
> kind at 36", because manufacturers have decided that the 16:9 CRT size is
> 34". There are only a few 36" 4:3 HDTVs of any kind.
>
> > So, is it any wonder
> > consumers are buying the cheaper, non ATSC sets?
>
> In reality, consumers are buying the more expensive no tuner displays. If
> the 16:9 world was dominated by 36" sets instead of 34" sets, displays
> with tuners would be flying off the shelves.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 12:31:49 PM

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote:
> I am one of many
> consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am
> appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner that
> I don't need.

Standalone NTSC tuners also ran about $300, e.g. for Sony's Profeel line.

By your logic, then, it was wrong to incorporate NTSC tuners into TVs.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 12:41:45 PM

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Chet Hayes wrote:
> The issue is
> it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
> sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's
> $300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use
> because they have cable or sat.

Bullshit. Integrated TV sets cost about the same as the monitors; some
are even cheaper. The problem is that, currently, there isn't very much
selection in integrated TV sets.

Actually, "monitor" is somewhat of a misnomer since many are actually "HD
Ready" analog TVs. If you want to talk about "useless", an NTSC tuner is
completely useless for someone with satellite, and most TVs won't let you
delete it from the video source rotation.

The fact that a standalone ATSC tuner may cost as much as $300 is
meaningless. Standalone NTSC tuners for use with monitors used to cost
that much as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the Profeel and
the Beta and U-Matic portapacks.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 2:47:33 PM

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

Chet Hayes wrote:
>
> BTW, what ever happened
> to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
> roll in at no noticeable cost?

If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs have
an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing. WalMart has a
direct view HDTV for under $800.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 3:10:34 PM

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

Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> If you followed Bob's post, the comparison was made for the same size
> sets sold with and without the built in tuner.

No, it only specified that in *one* set to give a comparitive price
difference (and even so, was wrong...see below).

In reality, they grouped all sets larger than 36" as one group, and
compared them. Read it again.

This means that the huge number of sets that aren't expected to have an
ATSC tuner *ever* (because they have *no* tuner at all) which sell fairly
well (because they are high-margin items for stores and get pushed) are
in the group of sets that "people choose instead of ones with ATSC tuners".

There is no actual breakdown to show that people are avoiding the sets with
tuners, or that retailers are avoiding the sets with tuners.

> The issue is
> it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
> sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more.

No, consumers aren't doing this. They *are* buying $8000 50" plasmas with
no tuner instead of buying $3000 50" RPTVs that have ATSC tuners built in,
and that *is* because of what stores are stocking...what makes them the
most cash.

Likewise, the non-integrated sets left in the manufacturer's inventory
are being discounted to retailers, so they are more appealing *right now*
to stores, since they can sell them for the same price (or slightly less)
they did 3 months ago, and pay 10-20% less.

> This is exactly what many of us expected to happen. And it appears
> the manufacturer's clever solution, which appears to have gone by some
> of you, is to pull in the 100% phase in dates so that consumers will
> have to eat the higher cost without recourse. BTW, what ever happened
> to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
> roll in at no noticeable cost?

They are, if you look at the right sets, and compare apples to apples.

An example, straight from the article:

"It's one thing to stack up a 50-inch Hitachi widescreen LCD projection
set at $3299.97 against the very same set, only sans an ATSC tuner, for
$2999.97."

Unfortunately for Bob's claims, Hitachi does *not* make "the same set"
(at least for 50" LCD projection TVs) with and without an ATSC tuner.
Last year's model does not have the tuner, while this year's model does.
Along with the tuner, the new model has extra or improved features, which
include (from Hitachi's web site):

- 2 stage lens system
- 3 extra zoom modes
- 7:1 fresnel lens
- Digital Color Management II (the "II" part is new)
- 40 watt 3-way speakers (as opposed to 24 watt single cone drivers)
- new remote control design ("roll and click")
- USB input
- 2 HDMI inputs (instead of zero)
- RS-232C control interface

I suspect that all these new features (some of which, like the *four* extra
speaker cones, cost real money, not just R&D) *plus* the fact that the old
sets are being discounted to eliminate them from manufacturer's inventory
are enough to make up a $300 difference all by themselves.

--
Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But
SPAM bait: | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | throwing barrels at you."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 4:27:42 PM

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Psycho Bob Miller wrote:
> Because the ATSC tuner cost the manufacturer real money and they can't get
> the customer to pay for it.

"Real money"? What, a whole five dollars? Why, that's going to make that
$3000 plasma screen TV cost $3005, and nobody can afford that!

> Having a mandate doesn't in any way influence a customer to pay more for a TV
> set because it has an ATSC tuner unless he values it.

This statement makes no sense, since there is no such thing as a pair of
TVs on the market today which differ only by the presence of an ATSC
tuner.

The few TVs available with built-in ATSC tuners are all moderately priced.
The purpose of the mandate is twofold:
1) the broaden the variety of TVs with built-in ATSC tuners
2) to provide a guarantee to the market that is no longer subject to the
winds of change.

It is that second purpose that scares Bob Miller.

> The customer will evade
> it as they are doing.

Nonsense. Nobody is "evading" ATSC capability in TVs.

The only reason why I bought a TV without an ATSC tuner 18 months ago is
that there weren't any suitable TVs with an ATSC tuner back then. I
wouldn't even think of buying a TV without an ATSC tuner today.

As matters stand, I'm stuck with *two* set-top boxes in order to have
picture-in-picture capability. This is a bug, not a feature.

I wouldn't have bought that HDTV at all until TVs with ATSC tuners were
more widely available with a wider selection. I probably still would be
holding off until the mandate had thoroughly kicked in. However, my 25"
Sony XBR analog TV smoked and forced a replacement; and there was no way
that I was going to get another 4:3 analog TV.

> Right now the cost of that integrated 8-VSB
> receiver is probably around $110.

Where does that number come from? If true, how is it that was able to buy
an ATSC set-top box for $90? [Let me guess, now you're going to claim
that those evil Koreans are now dumping ATSC tuners at below-market prices
in the US in an attempt to seize control of the market.]

Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000
plasma TV.

In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between
the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive
and more featureful "B" model.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 8:04:28 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0045f5658033db9898f6@news.nabs.net...
> Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found
>> it quite interesting.
>
> The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank
> screen
> would be "quite interesting" to you.

The main point was that for TVs of the same size the models without the ATSC
tuner are far outselling those with the tuner. The way companies want to
respond to this is by moving up the date by which all TVs need to have an
ATSC tuner. That way consumers won't even have a choice! I am one of many
consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am
appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner that
I don't need.

From your other comments in your reply it is clear that you didn't really
understand the article. Next time you flame someone you should at least
know what you're talking about.

Brad
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 8:04:29 PM

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

Brad Griffis (bradgriffis@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The main point was that for TVs of the same size the models without the ATSC
> tuner are far outselling those with the tuner.

Again, it was not about "same size". It was about *all* TVs over 36", and
the data was aggregated. In addition, they appear to have done their
"research" based solely on ads, not on actual stock or on what is actually
selling.

It has *some* information about what stores "ordered by the truckload for
the holidays", but that doesn't tell the true story, because stores order
what they can make the most money on. For anything that sells, if the make
money by volume, then that's what they order. If them make money by
higher profit margins, then that's what they order. If manufacturers give
them an incentive because they have leftover inventory, then stores will
naturally order those items.

> That way consumers won't even have a choice! I am one of many
> consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner.

Blame the government, then, for not mandating the correct thing: OTA *and*
cable-ready digital tuners. This is what is mandated for analog tuners,
and there is no reason that digital should be any different.

> From your other comments in your reply it is clear that you didn't really
> understand the article.

I understand the article perfectly. It's an attempt to prove a claim by
using only a small percentage of the actual facts of the matter.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/NamespacePollu...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 8:16:16 PM

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

Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000
> plasma TV.
>
> In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between
> the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive
> and more featureful "B" model.

It's also less than 10% (as you point out), which means *any* store will
happily knock that price difference off to make a sale.

--
Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
SPAM bait: | Turn, turn, turn.
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Tell us the lesson
spam@ftc.gov | That we should learn"
| -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 8:38:03 PM

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote:
> I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer
> demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong
> for the government to mandate that it be incorporated.

By your logic, it was wrong for the government to mandate a standard
electric voltage. If you're stupid enough to buy a 50V appliance when
your neighborhood is served with 127V, that's your fault. If consumer
demand dictates it there will be a standard.

The cellular telephone network in North America is widely critized for
having (at least) four incompatible digital standards.

As far as consumer demand goes, most consumers have been waiting until
there are affordable (3-digit prices) HDTVs with built-in ATSC tuners.
This is especially the case in today's market where 4:3 analog color TVs
sell for as little as $40.

I know a consumer who is waiting to buy an HDTV until she can get a CRT
(plasma and LCD is out of her price range) model with a built-in ATSC
tuner and about the same physical size and weight as a 19" 4:3 TV (which
is her current TV). The location where that TV is installed will not
accomodate a larger or heavier set. The smallest CRT HDTV with built-in
ATSC tuner is still a bit above her price range and too large and heavy
for where it would be placed.

The only thing wrong with the mandate is that it is taking too long. The
sooner it is mandatory for all TVs, the better.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 9:13:48 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Chet Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, what ever happened
>> to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
>> roll in at no noticeable cost?
>
>
> If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs have
> an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing. WalMart has a
> direct view HDTV for under $800.
>
> Matthew
>
The point is not about replacement units it is about the same current
model units with and without tuners. In fact that is the issue in the
original article. The CEA wants to eliminate the possibility that the
consumer can choose between the two by eliminating those with no tuners.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 9:13:49 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Chet Hayes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, what ever happened
>>> to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
>>> roll in at no noticeable cost?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs
>> have an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing.
>> WalMart has a direct view HDTV for under $800.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
> The point is not about replacement units it is about the same current
> model units with and without tuners. In fact that is the issue in the
> original article. The CEA wants to eliminate the possibility that the
> consumer can choose between the two by eliminating those with no tuners.
>

You are really being moronic. Please cite a single instance of otherwise
identical units (with no other difference than an ATSC tuner) selling at
that level of price difference.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 9:30:00 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Chet Hayes wrote:
>
>> The issue is
>> it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
>> sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's
>> $300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use
>> because they have cable or sat.
>
>
> Bullshit. Integrated TV sets cost about the same as the monitors; some
> are even cheaper. The problem is that, currently, there isn't very much
> selection in integrated TV sets.

Because the ATSC tuner cost the manufacturer real money and they can't
get the customer to pay for it. Either they make fewer of them or they
have to discount them to a similar price that would be paid for a unit
without a tuner in which case they lose money, the cost of the receiver
whatever it is.

Having a mandate doesn't in any way influence a customer to pay more for
a TV set because it has an ATSC tuner unless he values it. The customer
will evade it as they are doing. If the mandate covers all TV sets the
customer will evade that by buying a monitor with no tuner at all. The
FCC got cute there by requiring all TV sets that are cable ready to
include an ATSC tuner. So the customer will buy a monitor that is cable
ready I would expect.

If there is someway for the manufacturer to get the 8-VSB receivers for
free the above scenarios can be dismissed. If they cost as little as $20
the above holds true.

Even $20 is a big deal in this game called supply and demand. It is a
stupendous edge in the market. Right now the cost of that integrated
8-VSB receiver is probably around $110. No one is going to give it away
in the retail market. Somehow or other it will be reflected in the
retail price or if it won't sell in a discounted loss situation.

Bob Miller
>
> Actually, "monitor" is somewhat of a misnomer since many are actually
> "HD Ready" analog TVs. If you want to talk about "useless", an NTSC
> tuner is completely useless for someone with satellite, and most TVs
> won't let you delete it from the video source rotation.
>
> The fact that a standalone ATSC tuner may cost as much as $300 is
> meaningless. Standalone NTSC tuners for use with monitors used to cost
> that much as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the Profeel
> and the Beta and U-Matic portapacks.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 1:16:55 AM

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

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.62.0411140928280.18603@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote:
>> I am one of many
>> consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am
>> appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner
>> that
>> I don't need.
>
> Standalone NTSC tuners also ran about $300, e.g. for Sony's Profeel line.
>
> By your logic, then, it was wrong to incorporate NTSC tuners into TVs.
>
> -- Mark --

I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer
demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong
for the government to mandate that it be incorporated.

Brad
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 3:59:20 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000
>>plasma TV.
>>
>>In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between
>>the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive
>>and more featureful "B" model.
>
>
> It's also less than 10% (as you point out), which means *any* store will
> happily knock that price difference off to make a sale.
>
Happily knock off that price for either a model with or without a tuner.
If they knock it off the one with the tuner and not the one without both
they and then the manufacturer has incentive to not include a tuner to
begin with.

If they have to include a tuner they want to make it for all units as
the article mentions. My argument is that the focus will then be on
monitors since monitors will still be less expensive since they have NO
tuners at all.

Of course once the 5th gen receiver tech is available this will change
as consumers are re-introduced to OTA broadcasting and OTA will become
the PRIME and first choice of consumers. This will not happen because of
current broadcasters. It initially will be driven by new broadcasters
like USDTV. They and manufacturers like Hisense have the incentive,
broadcasters do not as of yet.

Broadcasters will be supplied with incentive as they FOLLOW the lead of
such as USDTV. Emmis is an example. They followed the lead of USDTV
almost immediately. There will be others.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 4:45:35 AM

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

>Broadcasters will be supplied with incentive as they FOLLOW the lead of
>such as USDTV. Emmis is an example. They followed the lead of USDTV

BOB, virtually every prediction you have EVER made has been proven to be false.
This will be no exception.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 4:50:34 AM

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

>The purpose of the mandate is twofold:
> 1) the broaden the variety of TVs with built-in ATSC tuners
> 2) to provide a guarantee to the market that is no longer subject to the
> winds of change.
>
>It is that second purpose that scares Bob Miller.

Mark, that is it in a nutshell. This is why BOB is on another of his frenetic
attempts at disinformation. He is once again in full panic mode. His
predictions never come true and he now realizes how entrenched 8VSB has become.
He knows the mandate simply makes it worse for him and his COFDM buddies. Our
Maste Snake Oil Salesman is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to thwart
the inevitable.
November 15, 2004 10:58:46 AM

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

On 2004-11-14 17:45:35 -0800, vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) said:

>> Broadcasters will be supplied with incentive as they FOLLOW the lead of
>> such as USDTV. Emmis is an example. They followed the lead of USDTV
>
> BOB, virtually every prediction you have EVER made has been proven to be false.
> This will be no exception.

Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to
COFDM.

The prophet shall be vindicated.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 12:34:42 PM

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Phil wrote:
> Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all consumers
> suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM.
>
> The prophet shall be vindicated.

I have $1000 that says that it 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.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 1:14:58 PM

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

Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.62.0411141722470.28145@shiva1.cac.washington.edu>...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote:
> > I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer
> > demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong
> > for the government to mandate that it be incorporated.
>
> By your logic, it was wrong for the government to mandate a standard
> electric voltage. If you're stupid enough to buy a 50V appliance when
> your neighborhood is served with 127V, that's your fault. If consumer
> demand dictates it there will be a standard.
>
> The cellular telephone network in North America is widely critized for
> having (at least) four incompatible digital standards.
>
> As far as consumer demand goes, most consumers have been waiting until
> there are affordable (3-digit prices) HDTVs with built-in ATSC tuners.
> This is especially the case in today's market where 4:3 analog color TVs
> sell for as little as $40.
>
> I know a consumer who is waiting to buy an HDTV until she can get a CRT
> (plasma and LCD is out of her price range) model with a built-in ATSC
> tuner and about the same physical size and weight as a 19" 4:3 TV (which
> is her current TV). The location where that TV is installed will not
> accomodate a larger or heavier set. The smallest CRT HDTV with built-in
> ATSC tuner is still a bit above her price range and too large and heavy
> for where it would be placed.
>
> The only thing wrong with the mandate is that it is taking too long. The
> sooner it is mandatory for all TVs, the better.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.


I don't see how you can compare setting a voltage std with mandating
consumers pay for and buy something that most will never use. There
is no comparison at all. The voltage std analogy would be setting the
NTSC std, not forcing one to buy a tuner.

And isn't it quite odd that the govt sees this as perfectly
legitimate, forcing hardware on consumers without choice. Yet, at
the same time, when Microsoft chooses to add some features to it's
software and give it to consumers for free, the govt sues them
claiming anti-competitive practices.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 1:53:03 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<IbTld.4055$G36.3220@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> ...as consumers are re-introduced to OTA broadcasting and OTA will
> become the PRIME and first choice of consumers.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA haha....
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 4:02:39 PM

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

Phil (nntp-phil_077@weaselworkz.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
> consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to
> COFDM.

Somebody forgot the smiley on this post to show that it's sarcasm.

Of course, it could just be another Bob sockpuppet.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/FrozenLemmi...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 6:01:25 PM

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

Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I don't see how you can compare setting a voltage std with mandating
> consumers pay for and buy something that most will never use. There
> is no comparison at all. The voltage std analogy would be setting the
> NTSC std, not forcing one to buy a tuner.

Then you should be up in arms about cable-ready analog tuners in larger TVs.
Various surveys show that those tuners are *never* used because the sets
use satellite, digital cable, or external HD tuners as their only "TV".

This has been true for several years, yet nobody seems to mind the fact
that all those sets have "useless" tuners they are paying for.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/CatsAndDo...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 10:22:38 PM

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:58:46 GMT, Phil <nntp-phil_077@weaselworkz.com>
wrote:


>Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
>consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to
>COFDM.
>
>The prophet shall be vindicated.

Broadcasters already know which is better. However, the FCC has made
our bed and we shall be forced to lie in it.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 11:01:35 PM

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

>Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
>consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to
>COFDM.

Yes I would Phil, yes I would. Fear not, that scenerio will never happen
despite what our resident Snake Oil Salesman says.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 11:02:34 PM

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

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

Mark, I'll take your $1,000 and raise you $1,000 that it won't happen. :) 
November 16, 2004 1:11:45 AM

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

On 2004-11-15 09:34:42 -0800, Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> said:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Phil wrote:
>> Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
>> consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to
>> COFDM.
>>
>> The prophet shall be vindicated.
>
> I have $1000 that says that it 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.


I'll remember to include a few smileys in the future.. for the humor impaired.

I thought that with the content it would be obvious. But, looking
back over some of Bob's earlier posts I can see where people would be
confused by seemingly ludicrous assertions that the author actually
believes to be true.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 9:10:11 AM

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

Phil Witt wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:58:46 GMT, Phil <nntp-phil_077@weaselworkz.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
>>consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to
>>COFDM.
>>
>>The prophet shall be vindicated.
>
>
> Broadcasters already know which is better. However, the FCC has made
> our bed and we shall be forced to lie in it.

Broadcasters know which is better but it doesn't affect them at the
moment. It didn't affect them when the decision was being made either.
They were and are concentrating on where they make there money today and
that is must carry.

Since they were not paying attention, not very worried about their OTA
broadcasting and very concentrated on their must carry rights they did
not participate a lot in the decision making process that led up to the
modulation decision that chose 8-VSB.

Later when a more forward thinking broadcaster, Sinclair, discovered
that COFDM was far better than 8-VSB they paid a little attention. Many
broadcasters including NBC, ABC, Pappas, Granite and a few others joined
Sinclair in advocating COFDM. ABC in particular knew full well that
COFDM was far better because they had been testing it for a number of
years.

When LG and Harris and other special interest who had a lot riding on
8-VSB voiced opposition to the broadcasters belated interest in COFDM,
they did so because they thought that they were about to reap a quick
windfall as HD mania swept the nation. The broadcasters were seen as
trying to delay the transition and hence the super profitable windfall
envisioned by the CEA members and transmitter manufacturers like Harris.
They pulled every string in Washington DC to attack the broadcasters and
the politicians did the dirty work of threatening the broadcasters with
loss of spectrum and loss of must carry rights.

Broadcasters were truly very afraid. They live in a glass house of must
carry that only survived a Supreme Court challenge by a vote of 5 to 4.
They beat a hasty retreat before the threats especially after the
hearings in 2000, the subsequent fraudulent MSTV test and further direct
threats delivered face to face directly by key Congressional powerhouses
just before they, broadcasters, voted on COFDM/8-VSB in January 2001.

That is past history. In the near future broadcasters will face another
threat. New broadcasters will appear who will deliver OTA programming to
fixed and mobile devices. This will siphon viewership from OTA, cable
and satellite. Broadcasters will not be shy about this threat because it
will be wildly successful. It already is happening in other countries.
The death of cable is openly discussed already in other countries
because of the success of OTA ventures there.

When this happens broadcasters will ask for the right to compete with
the same tools their competitors have. That is COFDM. Since the
modulation wars have already been fought and are over and since both the
transmitter manufacturers like Harris saw their sales killed by 8-VSB
and LG saw little or no royalties from 8-VSB receivers and since the
digital transition has been such an utter failure in the US, the FCC and
Congress will have no problem and broadcasters will have little
opposition from the CEA or such as Harris.

COFDM will be allowed in a heartbeat and little or NO attention will be
given to the plight of the consumer who has bought an 8-VSB receiver.
Why should they start then? The consumer has always been given ZERO
consideration by the FCC and Congress in the digital TV transition.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 10:58:35 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c02d5215f2c2d229898ff@news.nabs.net>...
> Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > I don't see how you can compare setting a voltage std with mandating
> > consumers pay for and buy something that most will never use. There
> > is no comparison at all. The voltage std analogy would be setting the
> > NTSC std, not forcing one to buy a tuner.
>
> Then you should be up in arms about cable-ready analog tuners in larger TVs.
> Various surveys show that those tuners are *never* used because the sets
> use satellite, digital cable, or external HD tuners as their only "TV".
>
> This has been true for several years, yet nobody seems to mind the fact
> that all those sets have "useless" tuners they are paying for.


Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is
a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 2:13:21 PM

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

Chet Hayes wrote:

>
> Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is
> a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD.

If the FCC had mandated digital cable ready ATSC tuners day one, they
would be cheap by now, too.

Matthew
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 3:26:02 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is
> > a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD.
>
> If the FCC had mandated digital cable ready ATSC tuners day one, they
> would be cheap by now, too.

Correct.

Secondly, nobody really knows how much an NTSC cable/OTA tuner adds to the
price of a set. Last I looked, a standalone NTSC cable/OTA tuner cost
around $80 (although I'm sure there are places you can get them cheaper if
you hunt).

With standalone ATSC tuners selling for $200, I'm not sure the real cost
of the tuner is much different, and that's without a full mandate for the
ATSC tuner that would allow economies of scale.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/DoomedProject.jpg
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 9:18:22 PM

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

On 16 Nov 2004 13:39:04 GMT, vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:


>
>People, do not let yourself be fooled by this Snake Oil Salesman. He wants you
>pay for your OTA TV. He does NOT want you to watch glorious FREE OTA HD. He is
>a desperate businessman who has banked on a failed modulation scheme. He is
>doing whatever he can to save his shirt and he'll do that if it means ripping
>the shirt off of YOUR back. Trust me on this.

I must say that I don't trust you, or your buddies who endlessly bad
mouth Bob Miller. I don't know this technology well enough to make my
own judgment, but Bob gives us names, dates and his opinion of the
technology. His version of history may not be correct, but it is quite
believable to me.

You seem to have nothing useful to say, but only call him names. Why
are you so afraid to let him have his say?

As an aside, in my fringe area OTA TV stinks, but the broadcasters
claim that we get satisfactory reception so I'm forced to pay for
network service from DirecTV.


charlie
November 16, 2004 9:18:23 PM

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

"Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote >
> I must say that I don't trust you, or your buddies who endlessly bad
> mouth Bob Miller.

Charlie,
You're leaving out about 500 AVS Forum members who (very loudly)
demanded that Miller be thrown off the forum (in year 2000).

Also, try a google groups search and read about how numerous Miller lies
and distortions have been revealed and clearly disproved.

Miller admitted to using his own daughter's internet account to sneak back
on the AVS forum, *after being ejected*.

Sorry, everything Vidguy says is true.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 9:24:25 PM

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

Charles H. Tieman (curious8@pacbell.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I must say that I don't trust you, or your buddies who endlessly bad
> mouth Bob Miller. I don't know this technology well enough to make my
> own judgment, but Bob gives us names, dates and his opinion of the
> technology. His version of history may not be correct, but it is quite
> believable to me.
>
> You seem to have nothing useful to say, but only call him names. Why
> are you so afraid to let him have his say?

OK, here goes with some facts.

FACT #1
The OTA digital TV standard in the US is fixed in stone. It is the ATSC
standard which uses 8-VSB modulation. The standard won't change until
decades after any device you buy today that is ATSC-compliant has crumbled
into dust from frequent use. You can bet your life savings on this fact.

FACT #2
Bob is upset that Fact #1 is a fact, because he put all *his* life savings
into a competing system, which lost due to being technically inferior for
the US market. He will blame this loss on anything but the technical
issues to keep people from buying current technology so that a "slow
uptake" will allow him to retain some small shred of self-esteem for
backing a loser.

FACT #3
In the US, 8-VSB is by far technically superior to COFDM for digital TV
for a few simple reasons:
- Size...our country is the largest in terms of distance from transmitters
to intended receivers *and* has more distinct stations broadcasting.
Other countries (which Bob uses as models of "success") have either very
small coverage areas or use repeaters to send the *same* signal across
a wide area. Neither of these would work in the US for financial reasons
(broadcasters don't want to spend the money).

Likewise, using COFDM with a "single transmitter" model would require
a *lot* more power for the same coverage. More power means more electric
bills for broadcasters, so once again it becomes financially infeasible.

- HDTV...HDTV was a consideration from the beginning in the US. Other
countries thought only of digital TV, but the US needed a system that
could handle the HDTV data rate (about 19Mbps) within the 6MHz bandwidth
of TV channels in the US. Currently, only ATSC has done this *anywhere*
on a commercial level.

> As an aside, in my fringe area OTA TV stinks, but the broadcasters
> claim that we get satisfactory reception so I'm forced to pay for
> network service from DirecTV.

It's likely that you should be happy that ATSC is the US standard, then.
You could probably receive digital broadcasts right now, since you
probably already have an outdoor antenna, while an urban-centric COFDM
transmission would leave you just as far out in the cold.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TractorBeam.jpg
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 9:27:42 PM

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

>You seem to have nothing useful to say, but only call him names. Why
>are you so afraid to let him have his say?

Then you have no real idea of BOB's history. He HAS been caught in numerous
lies. We are not 'afraid' of him speaking, but it is important to also have the
opposite side speak, in other words, the TRUTH. Believe what you like, I could
care less.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 8:09:20 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c0402301a629c17989904@news.nabs.net>...
> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is
> > > a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD.
> >
> > If the FCC had mandated digital cable ready ATSC tuners day one, they
> > would be cheap by now, too.
>
> Correct.
>
> Secondly, nobody really knows how much an NTSC cable/OTA tuner adds to the
> price of a set. Last I looked, a standalone NTSC cable/OTA tuner cost
> around $80 (although I'm sure there are places you can get them cheaper if
> you hunt).
>
> With standalone ATSC tuners selling for $200, I'm not sure the real cost
> of the tuner is much different, and that's without a full mandate for the
> ATSC tuner that would allow economies of scale.


For arguments sake, suppose it cost $100. What you want is the vast
majority of consumers, who will never use the thing because they have
cable or sat, to pay for it. Multiply out how much consumer money is
being poured down the drain. And exactly what is the purpose? It's
like forcing PC manufacturers to install quality stereo sound or a DVD
player early in the technology lifecycle in every PC so some get a
free ride, while others unfairly pay for it.

There are many things the FCC could have done to hasten the adoption
of digital TV, but this is one that makes the least sense.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:00:08 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KCsmd.707$Tq6.658@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> their main concern is still must carry of all the capacity of their 6 MHz
> channel by cable.

==============================
Then, why, in Seattle does the CBS affiliate REFUSE to let comcast carry
their HD signal?
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 11:29:36 AM

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

Chet Hayes wrote:
>
> There are many things the FCC could have done to hasten the adoption
> of digital TV, but this is one that makes the least sense.

Cite two things that the FCC could have done that make more sense than
insisting that the enabling technolgy be available day one?

Matthew
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 5:29:00 PM

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

Chet Hayes (trader4@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> For arguments sake, suppose it cost $100. What you want is the vast
> majority of consumers, who will never use the thing because they have
> cable or sat, to pay for it. Multiply out how much consumer money is
> being poured down the drain.

First, anything you say about ATSC tuners applies equally to non-digital
analog tuners. If they add even $10 to the cost, they are *far* more of
a problem in terms of total money.

Second, reseach has shown that over 30% of all TVs in this country get their
only input from OTA, and that nearly 70% get *some* input from OTA. Sure,
30% of TVs purchased will never have their tuners used, but I bet over
30% of cars will never have their jack used, either. And, over 30% of
consumers probably never use closed captions, yet every set has to decode
them and every station has to send them.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/CatsAndDo...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 6:59:25 PM

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

Chet Hayes wrote:
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c0402301a629c17989904@news.nabs.net>...
>
>>Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>>>Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is
>>>>a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD.
>>>
>>>If the FCC had mandated digital cable ready ATSC tuners day one, they
>>>would be cheap by now, too.
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>Secondly, nobody really knows how much an NTSC cable/OTA tuner adds to the
>>price of a set. Last I looked, a standalone NTSC cable/OTA tuner cost
>>around $80 (although I'm sure there are places you can get them cheaper if
>>you hunt).
>>
>>With standalone ATSC tuners selling for $200, I'm not sure the real cost
>>of the tuner is much different, and that's without a full mandate for the
>>ATSC tuner that would allow economies of scale.
>
>
>
> For arguments sake, suppose it cost $100. What you want is the vast
> majority of consumers, who will never use the thing because they have
> cable or sat, to pay for it. Multiply out how much consumer money is
> being poured down the drain. And exactly what is the purpose? It's
> like forcing PC manufacturers to install quality stereo sound or a DVD
> player early in the technology lifecycle in every PC so some get a
> free ride, while others unfairly pay for it.
>
> There are many things the FCC could have done to hasten the adoption
> of digital TV, but this is one that makes the least sense.

Like pick a real modulation system instead of the junk that is 8-VSB.
There is NO mandate in the UK and citizens there, in a free country,
have decided to buy ONE MILLION DTV COFDM receivers this quarter. This
is in a country where there are only 25 million households. Some
(include me) expect sales in the UK to even climb higher next year.
Pundits continue to predict a leveling off or drop in sales but they
will again be proved wrong. The same pundits that said DTV was dead on
arrival two years ago.

This level of sales says that free OTA DTV in the UK will pass satellite
next year and NO MANDATE NECESSARY. Let freedom ring!!! Except in the US
where other posters would suggest our citizens are to dumbass to to buy
8-VSB. I think our citizens are smartass and recognize a turkey when
they see one. This from the Guardian today...

Freeview 'to overtake Sky Digital in 2005'
Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday November 17 2004
The Guardian


The BBC-backed free-to-air digital service Freeview is set to break the
5 million homes barrier by the end of the year, with industry experts
predicting it will overtake Sky Digital by Christmas 2005.

Sales estimates from manufacturers and retailers for 2004 show that by
the end of the year they expect to have shifted 3 million Freeview
boxes, taking the total to over 5 million.

Current sales are running at an estimated 50,000 a week for the boxes,
which offer viewers 30 channels for a one-off payment of between £40
and £80, confounding expectations that demand would tail off following
an initial rush.

David Chance, who runs "pay TV lite" service Top Up TV offering Freeview
customers an extra 10 channels for a monthly fee of £7.99, predicted
sales would top 8 million by the end of next year.

"Freeview box sales in the calendar year will exceed 3 million units.
The Freeview box population will be in 5 million homes by the end of the
year," said Mr Chance, who is also an ITV director and a former BSkyB
deputy chief executive.

"The run rate next year could well be another 3 million. By December
2005, the Freeview platform could be as big as Sky, which is a very big
milestone," he told a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch.

Mr Chance said that Top Up TV, which launched earlier this year, was
gaining momentum now there were more Freeview boxes in the shops that
featured the card slot necessary to upgrade to the pay-TV service.

There are now three Freeview boxes available that are compatible with
the Top Up TV cards, with three more due to go on sale in the new year
through high street stores including Argos and Dixons.

He predicted the company would comfortably meet its break-even target of
250,000 customers within two years of launch, as more compatible boxes
became available and ITV realised the benefits of promoting the switch
to digital terrestrial TV rather than satellite or cable.

Audiences for the five traditional channels are affected far less when a
viewer switches to Freeview than when they subscribe to Sky or cable.

Mr Chance said the company was also benefiting from a growing
frustration among those who had bought boxes that weren't compatible
with the cards required to upgrade to Top Up TV.

"The majority of people who call up and can't get it are very
frustrated. They were never told the Freeview box they were buying could
not receive all the services on the DTT platform.

"The focus of their frustration is directed at the BBC. They are really
pissed off at the Beeb because it is the BBC's cross-promotional
activities that are really driving the take-up of Freeview," he said.

Former BBC director general Greg Dyke admitted in his book earlier this
year that part of the rationale behind the launch of the digital
terrestrial service was to flood the market with "dumb" boxes incapable
of turning the BBC's channels into "pay as you go" services at a later
date.

Because most Freeview boxes did not contain the card slots or encryption
technology required to operate a pay-TV service, Mr Dyke concluded that
leading the launch of the service following the collapse of ITV Digital
was "important to the BBC defensively".

But Mr Chance said the tide was turning and that retailers were
starting to stock more equipment compatible with Top Up TV in an effort
to avoid disgruntled customers returning their boxes to the shop.

The adapters with card slots typically cost around £65, compared with
£40 for the cheapest Freeview set top boxes.

"It leads to a significant number of customers taking their boxes back
to Dixons and wanting to change them. This is causing the multiple
retailers to start to say they will change their range next year to move
from stocking 10% of compatible boxes to 50% to 75%. It's quite an
important development," he said.

While he agreed with Mr Dyke that it was probably a mistake for BSkyB to
get involved in the launch of Freeview, he also agreed with Sky chief
executive James Murdoch that its success would have little impact on the
company in the long term.

Mr Chance agreed with Mr Murdoch's prognosis that pay-TV penetration
would reach 80% within the next 10 to 15 years and that once Freeview
penetration reaches 10 million it will begin to dip again as those
customers move on to pay-TV.

· To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email
editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857

· If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly
"for publication".
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 7:05:45 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Chet Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> There are many things the FCC could have done to hasten the adoption
>> of digital TV, but this is one that makes the least sense.
>
>
> Cite two things that the FCC could have done that make more sense than
> insisting that the enabling technolgy be available day one?
>
> Matthew

Test and chose a decent modulation system.
Leave the market alone after all we preach that to everyone else.
Republican administration and they are MANDATING???

NO other country has seen fit to MANDATE consumers buy a DTV receiver
and ALL other countries using COFDM are doing far better than the US in
sales of such "enabling technology". And not some day, NOW. IT IS
AVAILABLE NOW in all countries using COFDM.

The first MINIMALLY acceptable 8-VSB receiver will be available sometime
next year. We have been waiting since 1998. WHY? What incredible benefit
does 8-VSB bring to the table that we are required to wait for 7 years?

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 7:05:46 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Chet Hayes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are many things the FCC could have done to hasten the adoption
>>> of digital TV, but this is one that makes the least sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cite two things that the FCC could have done that make more sense than
>> insisting that the enabling technolgy be available day one?
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
> Test and chose a decent modulation system.

They did that.

That's one.

Matthew
!