Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The DTV Transition in the US is just SICK!

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:04:03 PM

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

"About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
his firm recently conducted."

http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...

How much worse could it be?

The whole digital transition in the US was predicated on FORCE. Force
the broadcasters to start broadcasting by a date certain. Force
manufacturers to include receivers in TV sets. Force the consumer to do
what? They are thinking on that one.

What happened to having a compelling product that works well and is
reasonably priced?

Little has been done about making sure we were using the best technology
so almost none of the players are on board. Even the CEA which was the
central player in promoting ignorance and deception in forcing 8-VSB on
us is completely out to lunch when it comes to HDTV. You would think
they would want to promote HD wouldn't you? Are they? Where is the
advertising from their members selling OTA digital receivers?

And this statement in the article attributed to Gary Shapiro, the most
ignorant member of the industry and CEA president says it all.

"But don’t expect the Consumer Electronics Association to aid that
cause. When recently asked what the CEA was doing to help educate HDTV
buyers on the need for cable or satellite programming packages, CEA
president Gary Shapiro commented that the organization believes that
consumers get a compelling proposition when they hook up their HD sets
to DVD players."

This guy should have been fired in 1999. He has single handedly cost the
industry 50% of HD sales they would have made over the last five years
alone.

Bob Miller

More about : dtv transition sick

Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:04:04 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
> but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
> watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
> his firm recently conducted."
>
> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...


Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
and satellite companies unhappy.

I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.

And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
have my suspicians that certain other network programs
are upconverted SDTV.

But do you REALLY think I am deluded thinking I
am watching HDTV?

Doug
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:46:12 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD
>> set but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they
>> are watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer
>> survey his firm recently conducted."
>>
>> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...
>
>
> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
> and satellite companies unhappy.
>
> I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
> I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
> TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
> HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
> stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.
>
> And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
> have my suspicians that certain other network programs
> are upconverted SDTV.
>
> But do you REALLY think I am deluded thinking I
> am watching HDTV?
>
> Doug

The article is talking about the "half of the 5 million to 6 million
U.S. households" who have no cable, satellite or OTA receiver, have an
HDTV set, are watching SD and think they are watching HD. As the article
goes on to say they also probably think they are watching HD when they
watch their DVD's.

"Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS, Fox
and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
cost at least $300 apiece.

“Frankly, the [HD] consumer is watching regular digital cable with a DVD
player, and what we as an industry need to do is convert those customers
who already have HD to our high-definition service, and make sure that
we win the battle of the HD covert,” Rooney says"

Bob Miller
Related resources
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:00:05 PM

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

In news:congbf$nmd$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> typed:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD
>> set but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think
>> they are watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a
>> consumer survey his firm recently conducted."
>>
>>
http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...
7b0029d8284980
>
>
> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
> and satellite companies unhappy.

I'm watching FREE OTA HDTV from 60 miles away (Philly & Baltimore from Dover
DE).

> I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
> I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
> TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
> HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
> stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.
>
> And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
> have my suspicians that certain other network programs
> are upconverted SDTV.
>
Just for the fun of it I took the S-Video from my Sylvania box and fed it
into an S-Video monitor with an effects box to decrease the luminance
signal. Viewing just the chroma signal showed a super sharp image NTSC (or
even 8MHz PAL) couldn't touch. MNF with it's brightly colored uniforms
definitely tells me I'm getting HD.

As far as the SD stuff, getting studio grade color (with full 3D decoding)
is a bonus. ;-)

Drewdawg
Enjoying free Digital since the 2004 olympics.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:39:23 PM

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

>"Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS, Fox
>and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
>analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
>cost at least $300 apiece.

Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.

Gordon L. Burditt
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:39:24 PM

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

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>"Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS, Fox
>>and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
>>analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
>>cost at least $300 apiece.
>
>
> Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
> or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
> over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
> is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
> since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
> it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

The new Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC receiver lists at $249. I saw one on
display at a Best Buy recently, but when I asked about it, they did not
have any in stock. The Samsung T451 is more capable than the US Digital
box sold at Walmart in that it has DVI & VGA connectors and a digital
5.1 audio output, none of which I think the Walmart box has. The Samsung
also has the advantage of downloadable spec sheets and manual, none of
which I could find for the US Digital receiver. But if I want to get the
Samsung, it looks as if I have to order it on-line, the only over the
air ATSC set top boxes I usually see at Best Buy and Circuit City are
part of the satellite receivers they sell.

I think the lack of public education and availability of lower cost
ASTC set top boxes is the major problem with the conversion to digital
broadcasts. I find few people are even aware that we are converting to
digital OTA broadcasts. And the total lack of stand-alone set top boxes
at the major electronic retailers only adds to the problem. The FCC
should be spending some money and working with broadcast TV stations on
a public information campaign to smooth the transition.

And please, spare us the 8-VSB vs the COFDM rants, Mr. Miller. Talk
about beating a dead horse long after the ship has sailed, if I may mix
my metaphors.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:20:43 PM

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:
> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
>>> "Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS,
>>> Fox and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
>>> analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
>>> cost at least $300 apiece.
>>
>>
>>
>> Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
>> or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
>> over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
>> is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
>> since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
>> it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.
>>
>> Gordon L. Burditt
>
>
> The new Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC receiver lists at $249. I saw one on
> display at a Best Buy recently, but when I asked about it, they did not
> have any in stock. The Samsung T451 is more capable than the US Digital
> box sold at Walmart in that it has DVI & VGA connectors and a digital
> 5.1 audio output, none of which I think the Walmart box has. The Samsung
> also has the advantage of downloadable spec sheets and manual, none of
> which I could find for the US Digital receiver. But if I want to get the
> Samsung, it looks as if I have to order it on-line, the only over the
> air ATSC set top boxes I usually see at Best Buy and Circuit City are
> part of the satellite receivers they sell.
>
> I think the lack of public education and availability of lower cost
> ASTC set top boxes is the major problem with the conversion to digital
> broadcasts. I find few people are even aware that we are converting to
> digital OTA broadcasts. And the total lack of stand-alone set top boxes
> at the major electronic retailers only adds to the problem. The FCC
> should be spending some money and working with broadcast TV stations on
> a public information campaign to smooth the transition.
>
> And please, spare us the 8-VSB vs the COFDM rants, Mr. Miller. Talk
> about beating a dead horse long after the ship has sailed, if I may mix
> my metaphors.
>
> Alan Figgatt

There is a reason no one is on board with 8-VSB. The ship has sailed and
it immediately went agound.

You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42 in
one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.

They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In the
US that would be six million.

You decry the situation but don't want to hear the solution.

Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at what
a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver. Not to
mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on these 5th gen
receivers still.

What a waste.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:20:44 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>
>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>
>>>> "Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS,
>>>> Fox and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver.
>>>> But analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers,
>>>> which cost at least $300 apiece.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
>>> or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
>>> over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
>>> is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
>>> since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
>>> it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.
>>>
>>> Gordon L. Burditt
>>
>>
>>
>> The new Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC receiver lists at $249. I saw one on
>> display at a Best Buy recently, but when I asked about it, they did
>> not have any in stock. The Samsung T451 is more capable than the US
>> Digital box sold at Walmart in that it has DVI & VGA connectors and a
>> digital 5.1 audio output, none of which I think the Walmart box has.
>> The Samsung also has the advantage of downloadable spec sheets and
>> manual, none of which I could find for the US Digital receiver. But if
>> I want to get the Samsung, it looks as if I have to order it on-line,
>> the only over the air ATSC set top boxes I usually see at Best Buy and
>> Circuit City are part of the satellite receivers they sell.
>>
>> I think the lack of public education and availability of lower cost
>> ASTC set top boxes is the major problem with the conversion to digital
>> broadcasts. I find few people are even aware that we are converting to
>> digital OTA broadcasts. And the total lack of stand-alone set top
>> boxes at the major electronic retailers only adds to the problem. The
>> FCC should be spending some money and working with broadcast TV
>> stations on a public information campaign to smooth the transition.
>>
>> And please, spare us the 8-VSB vs the COFDM rants, Mr. Miller. Talk
>> about beating a dead horse long after the ship has sailed, if I may
>> mix my metaphors.
>>
>> Alan Figgatt
>
>
> There is a reason no one is on board with 8-VSB. The ship has sailed and
> it immediately went agound.
>
> You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42 in
> one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.

But they aren't HDTV receivers.

> They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In the
> US that would be six million.

But they aren't HDTV receivers.

> You decry the situation but don't want to hear the solution.

The solution is time.

> Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at what
> a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver. Not to
> mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on these 5th gen
> receivers still.

No one wants mobile HDTV.

> What a waste.

Yes, you are.

Matthew
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:20:45 PM

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

In news:10quun538su4v59@corp.supernews.com,
Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> typed:
>> You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42
>> in one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.
>
> But they aren't HDTV receivers.
>
>> They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In
>> the US that would be six million.
>
> But they aren't HDTV receivers.

But they (the UK) will eventually have HD and everyone with a $42 will have
to buy a new box to even receive HD. They could keep broadcasting a
compatible SD signal, but I don't see them doing it.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:45:44 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
> The solution is time.

Actually the time solution is problematic. At the present rate of ONE
PERCENT of households buying a receiver every seven years it will take
an additional 84 similar periods of time to reach the 85% penetration
that the law requires for the digital transition to transition and
analog to be turned off. I am sure the broadcasters would like that.

Lets see 84 times 7 years is only 588 years. No so bad and nothing like
the 4000 years it was going to take at the rate we were going in 2001.
>
>> Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at
>> what a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver.
>> Not to mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on these
>> 5th gen receivers still.
>
>
> No one wants mobile HDTV.

Whats wrong with mobile HDTV? If HD is so good, and I think it is, why
not be able to easily receive it while mobile, portable or fixed? Why
have to monkey with a directional antenna when most of the world will
see their digital antennas whether for HD or SD disappear into their
receive devices whether a cell phone, a laptop or a large screen HDTV in
the living room.

It is not just about mobile it is about easy reception anywhere. Who is
against that?

Bob Miller
>
>> What a waste.
>
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> Matthew
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:45:45 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> The solution is time.
>
>
> Actually the time solution is problematic. At the present rate of ONE
> PERCENT of households buying a receiver every seven years it will take
> an additional 84 similar periods of time to reach the 85% penetration
> that the law requires for the digital transition to transition and
> analog to be turned off. I am sure the broadcasters would like that.
>
> Lets see 84 times 7 years is only 588 years. No so bad and nothing like
> the 4000 years it was going to take at the rate we were going in 2001.

Only a fool thinks that new product rollouts are linear.

>>
>>> Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at
>>> what a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver.
>>> Not to mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on
>>> these 5th gen receivers still.
>>
>>
>>
>> No one wants mobile HDTV.
>
>
> Whats wrong with mobile HDTV? If HD is so good, and I think it is,

You're the one that said 480p was good enough.

> why
> not be able to easily receive it while mobile, portable or fixed? Why
> have to monkey with a directional antenna when most of the world will
> see their digital antennas whether for HD or SD disappear into their
> receive devices whether a cell phone, a laptop or a large screen HDTV in
> the living room.

That same process has already been discussed for 8-VSB. Differential
receivers with tiny antenna embedded in the unit is not the sole realm
of COFDM.

> It is not just about mobile it is about easy reception anywhere. Who is
> against that?

No one, especially all those who have posted here about easy reception
of 8-VSB in areas that get ghosty, noise NTSC reception. You, of course,
ignore that.

Matthew
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:45:46 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
> No one, especially all those who have posted here about easy reception
> of 8-VSB in areas that get ghosty, noise NTSC reception. You, of course,
> ignore that.
>


Exactly.

I lent a 2nd generation STB to a friend to see if he liked DTV,
over Thanksgiving. When he came back in Monday he
said that it worked great, no problem, just set the antenna on
the TV set. Except for one station, which worked for a
few minutes and then he lost the signal, and no matter
how hard he tried he never got it again. So there was indeed
a problem.


Indeed ... the problem was a bad transmitter. Even
COFDM cannot work if the transmitter power is identically zero.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:06:14 AM

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

:"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Y9Lrd.6248:$u81.881@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

: Matthew L. Martin wrote:
:<snip>

: > No one wants mobile HDTV.
:
: Whats wrong with mobile HDTV?
:
: Bob Miller
: >
:

Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with mobile television.

Limo's have it.

Bus' have it.

Airplanes have it.

Boat's have it.

SUV's and Vans have it.

As long as the driver doesn't have it, it's fine.



Keep the family entertained while they make that >2 hour trip to
grandma's for Christmas. I'm all for it.



As a matter of fact, in 1978 I had a 1977 Ford Econline E-150
customized by VanLand. It had a bed and a sink. My kids were 3 and 4
years old, and I had a new toy... a VHS video tape machine. This
was one of the original ones, as it had 'piano keys' for rewind, stop,
play, fastforward, and if you pressed both the play and record keys at
the same time you could record. Does anyone remember that? It had
two speeds SP and LP. A blank 2 hour tape cost $25.00 at that time.
We had one move... "THE DEEP" price $150.00 for the one movie.



I invested in a 115 watt inverter that powered both the VHS and a
little 13" black and white television. I hung this 13" set from a
macramé inside the van, and recorded 2 hours of cartoons from Saturday
morning television. This kept my children entertained from 1978 until
I sold the van. I recreated this again in 1986 when I bought an
Aerostar and by then we an 11" color set and a newer VHS that did all
3 speeds.



So, I don't really see anything bad about mobile TV, I've been doing
it for 25+ years anyway. I'll just put in my DTV receiver and
watch-a-way. as long as I'm not driving that is. And, btw, It works.
I have a bigger inverter now, but still a small 13" color set in the
back of my Avalanche, and yeah mobile DTV is alive and well with the
USDigital HDTV receiver in mobile use. Well, it ain't High Def, but
it works. It does receive HD, but my little 13" ain't. One of these
days, maybe I'll get headrest LCD's, but not for a while. I've been
doin' it my way ... way to long!



Russ
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:06:15 AM

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

<snip>
>
>So, I don't really see anything bad about mobile TV, I've been doing
>it for 25+ years anyway. I'll just put in my DTV receiver and
>watch-a-way. as long as I'm not driving that is. And, btw, It works.
>I have a bigger inverter now, but still a small 13" color set in the
>back of my Avalanche, and yeah mobile DTV is alive and well with the
>USDigital HDTV receiver in mobile use. Well, it ain't High Def, but
>it works. It does receive HD, but my little 13" ain't. One of these
>days, maybe I'll get headrest LCD's, but not for a while. I've been
>doin' it my way ... way to long!
>
>
>
>Russ
>
>

Russ,

What are you using for an antenna? I ahve been doing the same
sort of thing for only 11 years or so, but never live broadcast.

Thanks,

Steve
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:51:18 AM

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

<CaptainWatty> wrote in message
news:cr1vq05jrtno03p940ca0h7mq5o9sqdsk0@4ax.com...

:
: Russ,
:
: What are you using for an antenna? I ahve been doing the same
: sort of thing for only 11 years or so, but never live broadcast.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Steve

It's an amplified (12v) antenna that I purchased from Radio Shack
many, many, many years ago (1978). I couldn't tell you the model
number if I had to. The antenna slips over the rear window, then you
roll the window up to hold it in place. It has two dipoles that
extend out over the roof of the vehicle. It has a selector knob so
you can "fine-tune" for the best signal. A 75ohm coax attaches to the
vcr and from the vcr to the television. I'm thinking about purchasing
an inline amplifier, maybe that'll extend my range 5 miles or so, see
below. One of these days when DVD's go down in price, I'll put in one
of them <imitates old-timer> "new-fangled contraptions."</imitates
old-timer> ;) 

I'll continue with this.

With the analog signal you get ghosty, blurry, snowy images as long as
you can get a signal. It comes and goes. It's something you get used
to. I've been doing this for 25+ years, and I guess that I figure
something is better than nothing at all. When you get out of range,
you slip in a tape. Back in the day when the speed limit was 55 mph,
it took 7 hours to drive from my house to my parents house. I had (at
that time) all 3 Star Wars (IV, V, and VI) on tape. My girls would
put in Star Wars and watch the whole series during the trip. Great
babysitter! I could get television for Dallas/Ft. Worth, Abilene,
Lubbock, Amarillo, and Wichita Falls main channels, and pull in
translator stations for the boonies around Memphis on 287 and Snyder
on 84.

With Digital, you got a perfect picture or you don't have any picture.
No snow, no fading, just pixilation and poof, it's gone. If you know
the area, you know if you'll get it back. If not, oh well, I
understand, and go for the tapes, or radio, or cd's. Range is a bit
less than with analog for that reason. (say 5 to 10 miles mobile
less).

Just to let you know, I live in Texas... and have driven from DFW to
Lubbock and Amarillo over the past 20 years. I receive a television
signal about the same distance you receive a normal FM radio signal.

Russ
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:51:19 AM

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

kw5kw wrote:

>
> It's an amplified (12v) antenna that I purchased from Radio Shack
> many, many, many years ago (1978).
>
> I'll continue with this.
>
> With the analog signal you get ghosty, blurry, snowy images as long as
> you can get a signal. It comes and goes. It's something you get used
> to. I've been doing this for 25+ years,

>
> With Digital, you got a perfect picture or you don't have any picture.
> No snow, no fading, just pixilation and poof, it's gone. If you know
> the area, you know if you'll get it back. If not, oh well, I
> understand, and go for the tapes, or radio, or cd's. Range is a bit
> less than with analog for that reason. (say 5 to 10 miles mobile
> less).
>
> Just to let you know, I live in Texas... and have driven from DFW to
> Lubbock and Amarillo over the past 20 years. I receive a television
> signal about the same distance you receive a normal FM radio signal.


How reliable is it, driving from say Mesquite, past downtown Dallas and
Ft. Worth, and then on out west? What about dropouts? What routes have
you taken? I have seen the towers by eye on a clear night from Weatherford.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 4:55:46 AM

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

"drewdawg" <spamage@failed.net> wrote in message
news:_dNrd.20$Ug1.11634@news.uswest.net...
> In news:10quun538su4v59@corp.supernews.com,
> Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> typed:
>>> You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42
>>> in one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.
>>
>> But they aren't HDTV receivers.
>>
>>> They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In
>>> the US that would be six million.
>>
>> But they aren't HDTV receivers.
>
> But they (the UK) will eventually have HD and everyone with a $42 will
> have
> to buy a new box to even receive HD. They could keep broadcasting a
> compatible SD signal, but I don't see them doing it.

Yep - though a set top box is cheaper to replace than an entire integrated
TV! (Though of course you could upgrade an IDTV to HD reception - but not
display - if a cheap HD receiver with SD output were sold I guess) If
you've only paid £30 or £40 for a set top box and it has lasted 2 or 3 years
I think that is still pretty good value even if it does become obsolete -
though I don't think the timescale for OTA HD is this close (less than £1 a
month?) Of course the $42 boxes on sale now will never deliver HD - but
then not many will be feeding HD capable displays (some may be feeding posh
LCDs, Plasmas or Projectors though I admit) As long as SD OTA broadcasts
continue - and they are likely to for a good while yet - they won't be
redundant for feeding SD displays.

HD in the UK initially will be driven by satellite rather than OTA digital
transmission - as was the case with analogue multichannel and digital
multi-channel TV. Digital satellite took off quicker than digital
terrestrial when both were pay-TV platforms, though now that OTA DTV is
mainly Free-to-air and offers a significant extra choice to analogue OTA,
and the digital satellite market is maturing and recruiting fewer new
subscriptions, the digital OTA system may well soon be overtaking it.

HD is expected to launch on DSat in the UK in 2006. 720/50p and 1080/50i
are the most likely standards - and I believe Sky Digital's receiver (who
will define the UK standard I guess) is widely expected to cope with both of
these HD standards. It is expected that MPEG4 H264 AVC may be adopted in
addition to MPEG2 (now that both are in the DVB fold)

HD transmissions, initially, will be simulcast on satellite I guess - I
can't see Sky quickly replacing their MPEG2 digital SD receivers (which are
provided free on subscription, but become the property of the subscriber)
for HD receivers - so I imagine MPEG2 SD transmissions will run in parallel
for a good time to come yet - with HD being an "early adopter" market for a
while to come.

There is no imminent prospect of HD via OTA digital TV in the UK AFAIK as
there is no spectrum free to use - and even with MPEG4 and the other new
codecs you couldn't swap out the current MPEG2 SD services for newer HD
without removing some (which is likely not to be acceptable - though
personally I'd be happy to see the end of the shopping channels, but they
pay the going rate for digital carriage so have as much right to be there as
anyone else I guess).

The government currently plan to sell off the space freed up in the UK OTA
UHF spectrum - but if this were bought for HD transmission I guess HD
simulcasts or new HD services for new receivers could be broadcast. Whether
this happen would probably depend on how popular HD via satellite had
become? (For info the UK only has UHF TV - we have DAB digital radio
broadcasts in some of the old Band III VHF TV spectrum which was released
when our B&W 405line service finally ceased in 1985. We didn't move any 625
line stuff to VHF - allowing a new 625 UHF network to launch in the early
60s, with the two original 405 line networks simulcasting in 625 - and by
this time PAL colour - by the late 60s. For a while dual 625/405 line sets
were on-sale. I guess the UK is slightly unusual in already having managed
a wholesale change-over from one popular TV standard to another, though
other European countries changed colour standard when the cold war ended I
think - though dual standard sets weren't unusual by this time)
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:45:51 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:congbf$nmd$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...
>
>
> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
> and satellite companies unhappy.
>
=====================================
I think that is exactly what is happening.
OTA is expanding. The article seems to ignore that completely.
======================================

> I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
> I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
> TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
> HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
> stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.
>
> And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
> have my suspicians that certain other network programs
> are upconverted SDTV.
>
> But do you REALLY think I am deluded thinking I
> am watching HDTV?
>
> Doug
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:48:13 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o FHrd.6123$u81.3776@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The article is talking about the "half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S.
> households" who have no cable, satellite or OTA receiver, have an HDTV
> set, are watching SD and think they are watching HD. As the article goes
> on to say they also probably think they are watching HD when they watch
> their DVD's.

===============================
The article barely mentions OTA.
It is primarily complaining that people are not subscribing to cable or
satelite HD packages.
I am considering dropping my sat since we rarely use it.
I will STILL be watching HD OTA, but will be completely off their radar.
================================
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 5:35:09 PM

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

I live on the west side FT Worth. (I) Don't even go towards Dallas
unless absolutely necessary!



I go out 20 towards Sweetwater and then up 84 to Lubbock.

I also go 287 towards Wichita Falls and on in to Amarillo.

And Around Ft. Worth the only real drop-outs are downtown Ft. Worth
with the buildings, but that was ALWAYS the case, nothing new to me.
An occasional drop if you go down one of the deeper ... what would you
call them, ravines, chasms, valleys?... anyway drop down a hill, but
as I said before, that's always been the rule, and It's something that
I'm used to. Just the action is a bit different, it freezes and then
drops, before you'd get real snowy and shakey and fade away. You
actually get a better picture longer now.



Russ



:
: How reliable is it, driving from say Mesquite, past downtown Dallas
and
: Ft. Worth, and then on out west? What about dropouts? What routes
have
: you taken? I have seen the towers by eye on a clear night from
Weatherford.
:
: Doug McDonald
:
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 5:35:10 PM

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

kw5kw wrote:

> I live on the west side FT Worth. (I) Don't even go towards Dallas
> unless absolutely necessary!

My feeling EXAACTLY!


>
>
>
> I go out 20 towards Sweetwater and then up 84 to Lubbock.
>
> I also go 287 towards Wichita Falls and on in to Amarillo.
>
> And Around Ft. Worth the only real drop-outs are downtown Ft. Worth
> with the buildings, but that was ALWAYS the case, nothing new to me.


So, Bob Miller, there you have it .... mobile 8-VSB reception in
a very typical part of Mid America. I used to live right there.
Cedar Hill, where the towers are, is about 25 miles from
downtown Ft. Worth ... much farther than your transmitter inside
Manhattan. And note that he does NOT say "gets real ghosty" to
the analog performance ... it gets "snowy" and fades away.

COFDM can't fix "snowy and fades away".

The towers on Cedar hill are not even the greatest of monsters,
they are about 1700 feet HAAT. Yet it provides MOBILE TV service across
a vast area of typical America.

I'd like permission to post your stuff on the professional
mailing list were Bob Miller remains the only COFDM gadfly, the
others have given up and presumably moved to heaven in Berlin.


One more question: what fraction of the distance between Ft. Worth and
Lubbock and Ft. Worth and Amarillo can you get DTV from one or another
place? The Ft. Worth stations are of course full power ... but are the
others? Does it make a difference whether they are UHF or VHF?

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:48:20 PM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:coq1rm$hr6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
: kw5kw wrote:
:
<snip>
:
: I'd like permission to post your stuff on the professional
: mailing list were Bob Miller remains the only COFDM gadfly, the
: others have given up and presumably moved to heaven in Berlin.
:

sure you have it
:
: One more question: what fraction of the distance between Ft. Worth
and
: Lubbock and Ft. Worth and Amarillo can you get DTV from one or
another
: place? The Ft. Worth stations are of course full power ... but are
the
: others? Does it make a difference whether they are UHF or VHF?

long reply but here goes

This was on my last trip about 1.5 months ago.
Equipment:
USDigital HDTV Receiver from Wal-Mart plugged into a 700 watt inverter
(just what I have). (It (inverter) also powers lap-top and other
electronics as necessary.) Amplified (12v) mobile diapole from Radio
Shack that is >25 years old using 75ohm coax. 13" RCA CRT 120/12v
color set using composite video / ausio in for DTV, built in tuner for
analog. (no splitter, manually change antenna from STB to TV if
changing... better for both analog and digital if no splitter in
mobile install... I've tried it, I know.)

Ditital Stations listed only

West on 20

near DFW
27 and 58 are the worst... only available to intersection of I20 and
I30 west of ft worth. (Aledo Hill)
ABC (VHF) next fades out about Weatherford.
Fox, CBS, NBC, WB, UPN, PBS stations are last to go about the Parker
County line. some 30 miles west of my house. This is about 10 miles
before the analog signal gives up the ghost. But, it is really in and
out by now anyway.

Near Abilene
You can pick up NBC and CBS about Cisco. (Abilene Stations) and ABC
and UPN come in as you enter Abilene (Sweetwater stations). NBC and
CBS leave about Sweetwater, while ABC and UPN stay in until Snyder on
US 84

Near Lubbock
PBS, FOX, NBC come in as you top the hill at Post and stay in until
after you turn north on US 385 outside of Littlefield.

Near Amarillo
West Side up us 60 from Hereford
Can begin picking up CBS and PBS (both VHF) near Umbarger, Fox and
ABC (UHF) come in near Canyon.
East Side
FOX and ABC cut out just past Claude (US 287) while CBS and PBS last
almost to Clarenton.

Near Wichita Falls
East Bound on 287
CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox all come in as you near Iowa Park.
West Bound 287
CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox all come in as you near Bowie.

Hope this helps
Russ
:
: Doug McDonald
:
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:10:56 AM

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

HDTV is a waste of resources . A digital anamorphic 720x480 would have
worked just as good for most people and would have been faster and cheaper
to implement.

Americans are so full of a supersized mentality. You can see it on
everything from their TV sets to their wastelines. The idiots on this NG
think everybody has the space for a 65 inch TV, or even a 42 inch TV, plus a
dedicated home theater.

NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
should be a simple standard, too.

Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV. They aren't
pigs like Americans, they are fine with their smaller television sets, and
they aren't so self-absorbed that they demand a "home theater". They may
not have huge houses but they also don't have 35 million people living with
food insecurity, 45 million people without health insurance, and a further
90 million under-insured. Oh, and they didn't kill 101,300 people for fuel
for their oversized cars.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:39:49 AM

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

>Even the CEA which was the
>central player in promoting ignorance and deception in forcing 8-VSB on
>us is completely out to lunch when it comes to HDTV. You would think
>they would want to promote HD wouldn't you?

Hey you DOPE, BOB, this has NOTHING to do with 8VSB. You are a damn JERK. I
swear you are. Satellite and cable do NOT, repeat do NOT, broadcast via 8VSB.
The public's ignorance of the OTA broadcast standard has ZIPPO to do with the
transition. I am SICK & TIRED of your freaking BULLSHIT BOB! Get a damn life
and stop embellishing, LYING, distorting and TWISTING the facts. You are a damn
Snake Oil Salesman.

People, do NOT believe ANTHING this Snake Oil Salesman says, NOTHING.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:42:10 AM

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

>You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42 in
>one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.

And how much HD do they receive BOOBY BOB? ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ZIPPO. This is an
HD forum.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:44:33 AM

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

>Whats wrong with mobile HDTV? If HD is so good, and I think it is, why
>not be able to easily receive it while mobile, portable or fixed?

If HD is so good in YOUR "mind" BOB, why don't YOU own one???? And as to
receiving HD on a mobile device, this simply PROVES how damn ignorant you are
about HD. HD is TOTALLY, 100% wasted on a teeny weeny screen. NOBODY but NOBODY
would know it's HD. But hey, you no nothing about HD so your statement makes
perfect sense.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:46:44 AM

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

>I lent a 2nd generation STB to a friend to see if he liked DTV,
>over Thanksgiving. When he came back in Monday he
>said that it worked great, no problem, just set the antenna on
>the TV set.

BOOBY does not want to hear things like this. Of course, fear not, BOOBY will
file this away in the "I never heard that" file.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:49:15 AM

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

>I'd like permission to post your stuff on the professional
>mailing list were Bob Miller remains the only COFDM gadfly, the
>others have given up and presumably moved to heaven in Berlin.

BOB is hopeless. He suffers from some serious disorder that forces his to lie,
distort & embellish. I guess losing big bucks on a FAILED modulation scheme can
do that to a person.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:52:28 AM

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

>> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
>> and satellite companies unhappy.
>>
>=====================================
>I think that is exactly what is happening.
>OTA is expanding.

BOB does not want to hear this either!!! He MUST live in his little dream
world. He MUST live in the past. He can NOT deal with the reality of today.
This is why he lives his life in Britain, Germany and any other country that
does not have 8VSB.
December 4, 2004 8:51:27 AM

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

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:37:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>Bob Miller wrote:
>> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
>> but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
>> watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
>> his firm recently conducted."
>>
>> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...
>
>
>Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
>and satellite companies unhappy.
>

Especially when most people got into cable tv just because analog OTA
reception was so bad. I could see dropping cable completely if the
local broadcasters would improve their product.
December 4, 2004 10:24:48 AM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> spewed in message
news:FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> HDTV is a waste of resources .... *snip*

I made the mistake of letting you out of the blocked senders list for a few
days... back in you go.

For good this time.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:03:13 PM

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

See in-line:

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> HDTV is a waste of resources . A digital anamorphic 720x480 would have
> worked just as good for most people and would have been faster and cheaper
> to implement.
>
> Americans are so full of a supersized mentality. You can see it on
> everything from their TV sets to their wastelines. The idiots on this NG
> think everybody has the space for a 65 inch TV, or even a 42 inch TV, plus a
> dedicated home theater.
>

Rather amusing comments, of course europe has no overweight people
(except our elderly women), right? I don't think you have to be
American to want "the best" and you should really educate yourself...
the HDTV standard is the high-end of the DTV standard created by the
ATSC which is an International body.

You don't need a 65" set to enjoy the quality of HDTV (although, the
larger the set the more noticable the enhanced quality seems to be),
and I thin you should note that not all Americans have gigantic sets
in their living room. HD looks quite nice on sets as small as 30";
which, by the way, have droped down to about $650 in the US (you can
get a Sanyo set with HDTV tuner for that in a local US Walmart these
days).



> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
> should be a simple standard, too.
>

It's funny because if you think about it, most of the complications
with DTV came from consumer confusion about NTSC and DTV standards.
For example, perhaps they don't understand why they need a "special
tuner" to pick up DTV, or perhaps they don't understand which plug to
hook their antenna into. Perhaps an HD set without an HD tuner and
they believe they are watching HDTV, perhaps they have hooked up an HD
cable box with improper cables that aren't capable of handling HD
bandwidth.

NTSC had the advantage of being the first technology of its kind. DTV
has the disadvantage of being a transition technology. The consumer
has to educate themselfs, and unfortunately when you throw up that
requirement you remove the simplicity of it.

However, the answer is not to avoid HD all togeather. You recommend
720x480, which by the way isn't even a DTV standard. The highest DTV
resolution before crossing over to HD is 704x480 and the complexities
in recieving that signal are no less than full HD (1080i/720p), the
consumer still has to have a tuner and proper cables.

> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV. They aren't
> pigs like Americans, they are fine with their smaller television sets, and
> they aren't so self-absorbed that they demand a "home theater".

So there really isn't much weight to your argument. Seriously, who
wouldn't want a home theater? Who wouldn't want to watch movies closer
to their native aspect ratio on a widescreen set. I sense a
considerable amount of resentment in the subtext of your message
towards Americans.


> They may
> not have huge houses but they also don't have 35 million people living with
> food insecurity, 45 million people without health insurance, and a further
> 90 million under-insured.

The health care system in the UK is garbage. The UK solution is to
lower the standard for everyone and give everyone something. In the US
there is a health care problem, but at least for the majority of
Americans (middle class and above) there is quality health care that's
readily available to meet the needs of the people.

In a capitalistic society the government isn't as involved. It's the
responsibility of the people to take care of themselfs a bit more and
with that comes a lot more opportunity (career and otherwise) than a
citizen of the UK or really anywhere else in the world would have.

It's not a perfect system, but it's a damn good one. If you want to
base success on quality of life and, frankly wealth, then the success
of Captialism over other systems speaks for itself. The fact that US
consumers can have home theaters is their reaping the rewards of their
economic system.


> Oh, and they didn't kill 101,300 people for fuel
> for their oversized cars.

I don't agree with the war either, but I'm not anti-Captialistic.
That's not to say that capitalism isn't without its flaws. When you
build a society based on the acqusition of things (consumption)
there's going to be side effects. People are looking out for
themselfs, but I think this behavor is actually very human I think it
persist in all economic structures it's just controlled by a select
few (government) that reap the real benefits. In Capitialism the
"elite" may only represent 2% of the whole, but at least the
opportunity to enter that group does exist.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:54:48 PM

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

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, magnulus wrote:
> HDTV is a waste of resources . A digital anamorphic 720x480 would have
> worked just as good for most people and would have been faster and cheaper
> to implement.

As Psycho Bob says, nobody needs HDTV, 480p is good enough.

Sock puppet.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:22:35 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> HDTV is a waste of resources . A digital anamorphic 720x480 would have
> worked just as good for most people and would have been faster and cheaper
> to implement.
>
> Americans are so full of a supersized mentality. You can see it on
> everything from their TV sets to their wastelines. The idiots on this NG
> think everybody has the space for a 65 inch TV, or even a 42 inch TV, plus
> a
> dedicated home theater.
>
> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
> should be a simple standard, too.
>
> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV. They aren't
> pigs like Americans, they are fine with their smaller television sets, and
> they aren't so self-absorbed that they demand a "home theater". They may
> not have huge houses but they also don't have 35 million people living
> with
> food insecurity, 45 million people without health insurance, and a further
> 90 million under-insured. Oh, and they didn't kill 101,300 people for
> fuel
> for their oversized cars.

You have been watching too many Michael Moore films (no doubt in SD).

Perhaps you should consider emigrating to this paradise on Earth that is
Europe.

Wait... let me guess, you have post election stress trauma?
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:23:04 PM

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

"David" <davey3@home.com> wrote in message
news:X7GdnS-D270QMSzcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> spewed in message
> news:FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> HDTV is a waste of resources .... *snip*
>
> I made the mistake of letting you out of the blocked senders list for a
> few days... back in you go.
>
> For good this time.

thanks... I forgot too
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:01:38 PM

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

magnulus (magnulus@bellsouth.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV.

No, they have *far* less digital TV.

The US has over 1000 stations broadcasting digital, plus two DBS companies
(with 100% digital channels) with close to 20 million total subscribers,
plus countless cable companies (each with 20 to 200 digital channels) with
70M or so total subscribers.

--
Jeff Rife | Sam: Hey, how's life treating you there, Norm?
SPAM bait: |
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Norm: Beats me...then it kicks me and leaves me
spam@ftc.gov | for dead.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:41:17 PM

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

>>
>>Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
>>and satellite companies unhappy.
>>
>
>Especially when most people got into cable tv just because analog OTA
>reception was so bad. I could see dropping cable completely if the
>local broadcasters would improve their product.
>

I certainly agree. My community, Modesto CA, population 200k, 60 miles
from transmitter towers, used to be a forest of 30ft TV masts, but
mostly gone now as people moved to cable and satellite to get a
reliable signal. Hardly anyone knows that OTA HDTV even exists. Ask at
Sears and am told that one antenna sold, was returned; someone has a
friend with OTA DTV but it conks out when a car drives by. Ask at Best
Buy, told that they have an antenna but not hooked up as reception
poor, only one salesman has heard of ATSC. Ask at Circuit City, told
that one set with ATSC receiver hooked to antenna, not reliable.

I don't know anyone with an HDTV set, but everyone I know complains
that cable is too expensive, a constant battle between the cable
provider and the city over the service. If the networks would promote
OTA DTV and if it worked well with a small antenna, it might really
take off.


charlie
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:47:50 PM

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

Phil Ross wrote:
> <rant>
> If the FCC had banned manufacturers from including NTSC receivers in ANY
> television 5 years ago, it wound not be the issue that it is today.

No the issue today would be how do you regulate the airwaves with no FCC
in existence and how well is our government running with a whole new set
of Congresspersons and President from a third party neither Republican
or Democrat since the voters would have thrown the whole crowd of them out.

If the government had mandated 8-VSB receivers into all TV sets 5 years
ago we would have hell to pay today. There would be class action suits
against everyone consumers could find because of DTV sets that didn't
work. You would have a recession in the consumer electronics the like we
have not seen because of the higher price of all TV sets. CRT's analog
are still 80% of sales. The higher prices for these would kill sales.
The number of returns of HDTV sets would be an unacceptable high percentage.

And we would not be any better off with this monstrous black eye of a PR
debacle making the acceptance of HD OTA even worse.

All parties involved UNDERSTOOD this five years ago. That is why there
are few 8-VSB receivers at retailers. That is why most HD buyers don't
have access to any HD OTA or subscription. That is why there have been a
minuscule number of integrated HD sets.

The s**t didn't work! With the advent of 5th gen receivers this could
all finally start to change. What a waste!

> They are still making sets with analog receivers, so of course, the folks that buy
> one of those sets will be pretty pissed if suddenly they can't watch TV on
> their brand new set in 2007. I have a 42" plasma for my living room, and
> get all of my HD content OTA, but do you think that I can find a small (20")
> TV with an integrated ATSC tuner for my bedroom? Lots of LCD "monitors" or
> sets with NTSC tuners, but why would I buy one of those now, since I would
> have to get a STB in a few years to watch the damn thing. I suppose that
> there is always cable or a dish, but why would I want to pay those scalpers
> for something that I can get off the air today?
> </rant>
>
> "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com> wrote in message
> news:19ksd.27595$Dm2.7396@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>

The government has to get on with the transition. That is why the White
House, the Senate (McCain), the House, (Barton) and the FCC (Ferree and
Powell) all are in the news. The push is on. They will disregard the 85%
rule or interpret it to mean digital TV to your cable or satellite
provider and not to your OTA receiver at home. This way they will have a
deadline of 2009.

However there is still the matter of the consumer in 2009. They vote!

Bob Miller
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:57:47 PM

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

gerry wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:37:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
> <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>>"About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
>>>but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
>>>watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
>>>his firm recently conducted."
>>>
>>>http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...
>>
>>
>>Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
>>and satellite companies unhappy.
>>
>
>
> Especially when most people got into cable tv just because analog OTA
> reception was so bad. I could see dropping cable completely if the
> local broadcasters would improve their product.
>
>
I think you will get your chance. Local broadcasters will do one SD
program with MPEG2 and use the rest of their spectrum to deliver a
subscription based service including HD and SD. You will get a free SD,
maybe enhanced SD, of every broadcast channel in your area and say 50 to
70 cable subscription channels on top of that for about 35% less than
cable charges.

Bye Bye cable!

Bob Miller
December 4, 2004 11:26:51 PM

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

"Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ras3r0pk7m4klqitvju1gf0p3vh4nqaqbo@4ax.com...
> someone has a friend with OTA DTV but it conks out when
> a car drives by.

I've been surfing DTV newsgroups and HDTV forums for ~5 years.

Your posting above is the first and only I have ever seen of it's type.
Unresolved 8VSB reception problems involving nearby traffic?

Can you provide any additional details about this?
Is your "friend of someone" using the correct HDTV antenna?
Is it possible he's using this model :

http://www.smarthome.com/7744ad.html

I suspect "Friend of someone" is possibly using Romex or BX or lamp cord
for downlead. Did he use chewing gum or scotch tape for his wire splices.
Did he attach F-connectors using a hammer? If so, what brand?
(of F-connectors).

Please look into this and post back to us ASAP.

Anyway, to be fair, complaints like "OTA COFDM DTV conks
out when a tiny, 25cc scooter drives by" have been very
common postings over the past ~5 years in the British and Australian
[COFDM] newsgroups/forums.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:44:58 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> magnulus (magnulus@bellsouth.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV.
>
>
> No, they have *far* less digital TV.
>
> The US has over 1000 stations broadcasting digital, plus two DBS companies
> (with 100% digital channels) with close to 20 million total subscribers,
> plus countless cable companies (each with 20 to 200 digital channels) with
> 70M or so total subscribers.
>
*far* less Jeff?

This article says Europe overtakes the US in digital households by
January 1st 2006. One reason he gives why? OTA in the US to be
insignificant. And he probably doesn't realize just how incredible sales
of OTA receivers are right now (this Christmas season) in the UK, Italy
and Germany where another big piece of the country went on line a few
months ago. His figures are for the end of 2003. Just this year alone
the UK is adding 3 million just OTA digital receivers as is Italy. When
you add in ALL European countries sales for all digital TV receivers for
2004 is probably in the 10 million range so Europe is right on our heels
as we speak.

http://www.theregister.com/2004/07/23/digital_homes/

"The US is the largest and most competitive digital TV market in the
world today, with more than 45 million digital households at the end of
2003. However, Datamonitor analyst James Healey says that by 2006 Europe
will represent a larger digital TV market than the US, with some 63
million digital households.

The American market, by size, had the most digital TV households, with
more than 43 million at the end of 2003 compared to 31 million in
Europe. The intense competition for subscribers between the cable and
satellite operators will continue to be the driver for the US market.
Due to the already high penetration of multi-channel homes in the US
(some 80 per cent receive analogue or digital cable or satellite TV),
DTT is unlikely to become a significant market."
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:49:19 PM

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

>They aren't
>pigs like Americans, they are fine with their smaller television sets, and
>they aren't so self-absorbed that they demand a "home theater".

Thank you. You have now PROVED that you truly an IDIOT. So wanting something
nice is now akin to being a 'pig' and 'self absorbed'? Why don't you go
somewhere other than the U.S......or are you already there? If you are not BOB,
then you are certainly showing an ideology that smells somewhat like BOB's.
Additionally, it's interesting how you and BOB come up with the most absurd
thoughts.

They may
>not have huge houses but they also don't have 35 million people living with
>food insecurity, 45 million people without health insurance, and a further
>90 million under-insured. Oh, and they didn't kill 101,300 people for fuel
>for their oversized cars.

Correction, you are not an idiot, you are a MORON.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:52:13 PM

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

>Seriously, who
>wouldn't want a home theater? Who wouldn't want to watch movies closer
>to their native aspect ratio on a widescreen set. I sense a
>considerable amount of resentment in the subtext of your message
>towards Americans.

Yup. Of course the other possibility is that this guy doesn't like working for
a living and thus can't afford the things he really wants. So, he could just be
one of those societal leeches.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:55:21 PM

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

>As Psycho Bob says, nobody needs HDTV, 480p is good enough.
>
>Sock puppet.
>
>-- Mark --

Mark, don't discount the possibility that this IS BOB! Afterall, he used the
same tactic on AVS. Here the motivation could be "see, I'm not the only one in
the world that thinks this way". We're dealing with an indiviual who obviously
has some issues.
December 4, 2004 11:58:00 PM

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

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:57:47 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>gerry wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:37:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
>> <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>"About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
>>>>but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
>>>>watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
>>>>his firm recently conducted."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID...
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
>>>and satellite companies unhappy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Especially when most people got into cable tv just because analog OTA
>> reception was so bad. I could see dropping cable completely if the
>> local broadcasters would improve their product.
>>
>>
>I think you will get your chance. Local broadcasters will do one SD
>program with MPEG2 and use the rest of their spectrum to deliver a
>subscription based service including HD and SD. You will get a free SD,
>maybe enhanced SD, of every broadcast channel in your area and say 50 to
>70 cable subscription channels on top of that for about 35% less than
>cable charges.
>
>Bye Bye cable!
>
>Bob Miller


You'll get a lot less channels over the Air.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
December 4, 2004 11:59:35 PM

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

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:44:58 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Rife wrote:
>> magnulus (magnulus@bellsouth.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV.
>>
>>
>> No, they have *far* less digital TV.
>>
>> The US has over 1000 stations broadcasting digital, plus two DBS companies
>> (with 100% digital channels) with close to 20 million total subscribers,
>> plus countless cable companies (each with 20 to 200 digital channels) with
>> 70M or so total subscribers.
>>
>*far* less Jeff?
>
>This article says Europe overtakes the US in digital households by
>January 1st 2006. One reason he gives why? OTA in the US to be
>insignificant. And he probably doesn't realize just how incredible sales
>of OTA receivers are right now (this Christmas season) in the UK, Italy
>and Germany where another big piece of the country went on line a few
>months ago. His figures are for the end of 2003. Just this year alone
>the UK is adding 3 million just OTA digital receivers as is Italy. When
>you add in ALL European countries sales for all digital TV receivers for
>2004 is probably in the 10 million range so Europe is right on our heels
>as we speak.
>

You can't compare Europe and the USA. In Europe they are used to only
getting a few TV channels.
Thumper
>http://www.theregister.com/2004/07/23/digital_homes/
>
>"The US is the largest and most competitive digital TV market in the
>world today, with more than 45 million digital households at the end of
>2003. However, Datamonitor analyst James Healey says that by 2006 Europe
>will represent a larger digital TV market than the US, with some 63
>million digital households.
>
>The American market, by size, had the most digital TV households, with
>more than 43 million at the end of 2003 compared to 31 million in
>Europe. The intense competition for subscribers between the cable and
>satellite operators will continue to be the driver for the US market.
>Due to the already high penetration of multi-channel homes in the US
>(some 80 per cent receive analogue or digital cable or satellite TV),
>DTT is unlikely to become a significant market."

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:33:47 AM

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

They probably wouldn't have him (except maybe the French).

"Chet Hayes" <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b81a861b.0412040722.57cbce40@posting.google.com...
> Why the hell don't you move to europe scum bag?
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:51:10 AM

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

David wrote:
> "Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:ras3r0pk7m4klqitvju1gf0p3vh4nqaqbo@4ax.com...
>
>> someone has a friend with OTA DTV but it conks out when
>>a car drives by.
>
>
> I've been surfing DTV newsgroups and HDTV forums for ~5 years.
>
> Your posting above is the first and only I have ever seen of it's type.
> Unresolved 8VSB reception problems involving nearby traffic?
>
> Can you provide any additional details about this?
> Is your "friend of someone" using the correct HDTV antenna?
> Is it possible he's using this model :
>
> http://www.smarthome.com/7744ad.html
>
> I suspect "Friend of someone" is possibly using Romex or BX or lamp cord
> for downlead. Did he use chewing gum or scotch tape for his wire splices.
> Did he attach F-connectors using a hammer? If so, what brand?
> (of F-connectors).
>
> Please look into this and post back to us ASAP.
>
> Anyway, to be fair, complaints like "OTA COFDM DTV conks
> out when a tiny, 25cc scooter drives by" have been very
> common postings over the past ~5 years in the British and Australian
> [COFDM] newsgroups/forums.
>
>

They conk out eh? Is that why they sold THREE million COFDM receiver is
little old England this year or 600,000 COFDM receivers in Australia
where they only have like FOUR million households?

THREE million in the UK is like EIGHTEEN million in the US and you can
hardly find an 8-VSB receiver for sale here. 600,000 in OZ is like 9.6
MILLION since they are like 1/16th our size.

Both countries are broadcasting COFDM and VERY low power levels because
they have to protect analog channels till their transition is over. Can
you imagine the complaints about low power in the US if ALL of our
broadcasters were broadcasting at an average of ONE kW like in the UK ?
I read complaints now on AVSForum about broadcasts that are at 280 kW
and how bad that is because they should be at 900 kWs.

If only they would broadcast at 900 kWs then we could receive it all of
15 miles away.

Even when OZ and the UK go to full power it will be minuscule compared
to even Low Power TV stations in the US.

BTW I can knock a 5th generation 8-VSB reception off by just walking in
front of the antenna or standing in a particular location in
relationship to it. You don't need a car.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 7:24:12 AM

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

>This article says Europe overtakes the US in digital households by
>January 1st 2006.

Hey, BOOBSTER, how much of that is HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION. When will it
penetrate your thick skull that we are ONLY interested in HIGH DEFINITION
TELEVISION on this ng. Man, you are one dumb SOB.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 7:32:43 AM

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

>They conk out eh? Is that why they sold THREE million COFDM receiver is
>little old England this year or 600,000 COFDM receivers in Australia
>where they only have like FOUR million households?

How many were HIGH DEFINITION BOOBSTER? You just will never understand that
THIS audience wants to read about HIGH DEFINTION, that's why it's an HD ng.
I've never seen anyone in my life that catches on as slowly as you do. Was it
chronic drug abuse that did this to you?
!