Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I guess bob didn't want us to see this...

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 6:42:23 PM

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

....

Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting
By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM
Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services
provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal
Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source
confirmed Thursday.
TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is
sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just
one programming service, the source said.
The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small
percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable
carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and,
thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal.
Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with
cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services.
Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal
court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large
TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules
for digital-TV stations within 30 days.
The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because
final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights
for digital-TV stations.
Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the
FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to
court to force the agency’s hand.
An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency
to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting.
It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue
with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital
broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff,
digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights.
In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the
multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote.
Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow
Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how
she would vote.
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back
broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of
public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations.
Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are
critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of
channels on pay TV platforms.
But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many
additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious
First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other
low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits.
Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel
space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses --
need to bargain for carriage.
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable
operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations
demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast
must-carry was not directly addressed in that case.

More about : guess bob

Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:05:16 AM

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

Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
times in the last month or so including today.

I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry.
I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5
to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way.
I have said that Powell has resigned.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller


Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> ...
>
> Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting
> By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM
> Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services
> provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal
> Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source
> confirmed Thursday.
> TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is
> sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just
> one programming service, the source said.
> The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small
> percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable
> carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and,
> thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal.
> Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with
> cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services.
> Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal
> court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large
> TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules
> for digital-TV stations within 30 days.
> The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because
> final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights
> for digital-TV stations.
> Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the
> FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to
> court to force the agency’s hand.
> An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency
> to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting.
> It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue
> with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital
> broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff,
> digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights.
> In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the
> multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote.
> Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow
> Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how
> she would vote.
> Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back
> broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of
> public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations.
> Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are
> critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of
> channels on pay TV platforms.
> But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many
> additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious
> First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other
> low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits.
> Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel
> space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses --
> need to bargain for carriage.
> In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable
> operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations
> demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast
> must-carry was not directly addressed in that case.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 8:26:05 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
> times in the last month or so including today.
>
> I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry.
> I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5
> to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way.
> I have said that Powell has resigned.
> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
> overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
> altogether.
> I have talked about every aspect of this.

Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than
you do.

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
January 26, 2005 11:51:55 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
> overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
> altogether.
> I have talked about every aspect of this.
>
> Bob Miller
>

I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
for their High Definition broadcast).
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 2:56:16 PM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
>>overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
>>altogether.
>>I have talked about every aspect of this.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>
>
> I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
> be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
> a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
> would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
> recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
> for their High Definition broadcast).
>

Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest
at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is
that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_
going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to
COFDM.

He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been
100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect
record.

Matthew
January 26, 2005 4:00:32 PM

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

> Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws
to
> include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to
charge
> for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest
here.
>
> Bob Miller


Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to
charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal
action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it.

If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free"
option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used
the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS,
FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time
ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same
time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC,
etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and
rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get
into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other
special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much
larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via
cable or satellite.

So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they
invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does
Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers.

It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical.

Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy
to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will
translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which
by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the
statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable
services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this
strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free
over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising
cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must
carry" mandate would give them a larger audience.

So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a
loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of
subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to
us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:11:07 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
>
> Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than
> you do.
>
> Matthew
>

Powell is against allowing broadcasters must carry of their multicast
digital programming. I agree with him. Even if he loses the Supreme
Court will overturn any decision by the FCC that allows multicast must
carry IMO.

So what are you talking about?

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 8:39:06 PM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
>>overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
>>altogether.
>>I have talked about every aspect of this.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>
>
> I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
> be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
> a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
> would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
> recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
> for their High Definition broadcast).
>
Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws to
include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to charge
for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest here.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 8:51:13 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
>>> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
>>> overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
>>> altogether.
>>> I have talked about every aspect of this.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
>> be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
>> a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
>> would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
>> recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
>> for their High Definition broadcast).
>>
>
> Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest
> at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is
> that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_
> going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to
> COFDM.
>
> He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been
> 100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect
> record.
>
> Matthew

You are right it is confusing.

Here it is in a nut shell:

It is in our business interest that 8-VSB is permanent BUT that it have
receivers that work fixed not mobile. That is why you find me ecstatic
that 5th gen LG receivers work and we were one of the first to test them.

It is in my and your personal interest that the US Congress not be able
to be bought by every special interest that holds out a buck. That
Congresspersons don't have to spend all their time raising money and
have no time to do anything but rubber stamp legislation actually
written by those special interest and which our Congresspersons don't
even have time to read.

It is in my personal interest that MY and YOUR spectrum be used with the
best modulation that allows all of us to benefit the most at the least cost.

So personally I am for a COFDM type modulation universally while it is
in our business self interest that 8-VSB be permanently affixed to
current broadcasters who thereby cannot compete with us while we use
COFDM mobile and fixed.

It is why a clear thinking Sinclair executive and top RF engineer, Nat
Ostroff, is both happy that there is now a viable 8-VSB receiver and
moans that long term broadcasters will be savaged by the likes of
Qualcomm who can and will use COFDM to compete in the broadcast DTV
market with the advantage of COFDM.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller
January 26, 2005 11:17:38 PM

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

See in-line:


> What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What
if
> then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA.

I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable
companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are
broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they
are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable
companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to
the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will
leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals)
explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a
good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful,
legal and informative).

Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins.


> In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up
the
> population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means

> free over the air broadcasting.

This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying
to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable
stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable
providers pay.

Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
for them.

They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.

Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV
infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are
reaping the beneifts of their investment.

But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the
mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair
wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with.
Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't
the right thing to do.

As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops
further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People
aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly
frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:08:40 AM

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

Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt.
Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the
year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an
anti-Kerry propaganda film
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:09:10 AM

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

Frank Provasek wrote:
> Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
> tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt.
> Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the
> year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an
> anti-Kerry propaganda film
>
>
Don't agree with the Sinclair political agenda but do agree with their
engineering side.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 2:23:47 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
>>Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws
>
> to
>
>>include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to
>
> charge
>
>>for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest
>
> here.
>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>
> Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to
> charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal
> action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it.
>
> If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free"
> option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used
> the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS,
> FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time
> ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same
> time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC,
> etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and
> rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get
> into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other
> special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much
> larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via
> cable or satellite.
>
> So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they
> invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does
> Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers.
>
> It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical.
>
> Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy
> to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will
> translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which
> by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the
> statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable
> services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this
> strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free
> over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising
> cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must
> carry" mandate would give them a larger audience.
>
> So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a
> loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of
> subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to
> us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting!
>
What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What if
then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA. In
fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up the
population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means
free over the air broadcasting. Something they seem to have forgot about
a long time ago.

I hope Sinclair loses, (wins in my book) and I hope broadcasters lose
must carry of multicasting. These two events would refocus their
energies on their OTA spectrum which can't ever be bad.

Bob Miller

BTW it is confusing when you talk of over the air content being received
over cable isn't it.
January 27, 2005 4:40:16 AM

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

<jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1106799458.644145.158960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> See in-line:
>
>
snip
> Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
> networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
> is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
> for them.

The number one thing promoted by cable companies to increase cable
subscribers is DVRs. When enough fast forward button are in Americans homes
how much value will ad time loose. I'am not a Sinclair fan but his decision
not to give programing to anyone underminding his coperate value is fair on
his part.

> They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
> by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
> capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
> This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
> only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.
>
Network programming is superior to a lot of cable programming and it HD
content is growing at a good rate. If they have the money to fill the extra
bandwidth with new or decent programming I could drop cable. OTA tuners will
follow the same price curve as any type tuner, but even now there worth the
cost to receive OTA. Being caught in the middle is unfortunate but if
there's enough complaints something will change.
January 27, 2005 10:06:23 AM

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

See in-line:

Bob Miller wrote:

> They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
> They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
> compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with
a
> small sample of what is to come.
>

If you're refering to services such as USDTV, well USDTV has been
around for a year or so now and I'm not seeing sings of growth. Where's
the public interest. It's not there yet.

> Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations
possible
> and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits

> its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD

> channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that
by
> some other factor.

So for their investment in DTV infrastructure the OTA networks have
gained more channel bandwidth. You imply over MPEG-2 they can do 16 SD
channels at present, but how many HD channels can they deliver? Part of
your vision for this seems to require the scaling back of HD content in
favor of SD content, which I certainly hope doesn't happen.



>
> Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
> transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one
yet????

I don't see the threat to cable/sat providers? OTA networks are in the
advertising and broadcasting business, you underestimate the services
infrastructure (enormous cost) they would have to build out to lease
equipment, perform maintence, set up billing department) at the very
least this would be a huge risk for them. What's more likely would be
for them to partner with companies such as USDTV and again, I'm not
seeing a success story with USDTV. To some degree OTA networks need
cable providers, to a lesser degree the opposite can be said.

I see the DTV transition as being something we're in the middle of.
Look at how many HD ready sets are being sold today vs a year ago. Look
at the price drops, look at the number of HD channels bein broadcast
today vs a year ago, if you can't see progress being made towards the
"transition" they are you selectively ignoring it.



>
> COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is
$200...

Please stop preaching about COFDM, hopefully by now you realize it's a
lost effort (regardless of if you are right or wrong).
January 27, 2005 10:12:44 AM

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

Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the
script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke"
or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down
this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in.
Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be
advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can
see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:35:47 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> See in-line:
>
>
>
>>What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What
>
> if
>
>>then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA.
>
>
> I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable
> companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are
> broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they
> are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable
> companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to
> the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will
> leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals)
> explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a
> good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful,
> legal and informative).
>
> Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins.
>
>
>
>>In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up
>
> the
>
>>population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means
>
>
>>free over the air broadcasting.
>
>
> This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying
> to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable
> stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable
> providers pay.
>
> Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
> networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
> is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
> for them.
>
> They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
> by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
> capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
> This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
> only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.
>
> Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV
> infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are
> reaping the beneifts of their investment.
>
> But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the
> mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair
> wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with.
> Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't
> the right thing to do.
>
> As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops
> further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People
> aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly
> frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations.
>
They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with a
small sample of what is to come.

Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible
and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits
its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD
channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by
some other factor.

Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
Why do you think the CEA pushed for 8-VSB so hard. They openly talked of
it being handicapped with no mobile and how that was supposedly good for
HD. Was it? CEA seems totally uninterested in OTA now that they have
saddled it with 8-VSB. Wonder why?

COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200
and only because a Chinese maker decided to get their feet wet with
WalMart. Don't you think it will be strange when that 3rd world country
China has $10 DMB-T HD receivers which work far better than the $200
8-VSB receivers they are selling to us? Who is the third world country then?

No they have kept the lid on and called COFDM the delayer while the
truth is that 8-VSB has caused the delay and was meant to. But they can
do it only so long and I think their time is running out.

Bob Miller
January 27, 2005 1:22:34 PM

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

You're nuts.

Way too much of the population just can't reliably get either 8-VSB or
COFDM content due to geographic constraints. That doesn't even begin
to consider the factor of range and signal variables particularly with
COFDM. I actually agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get a
healthy dose of reality. For example, your proposed solution would be
death to my area. To be clear - I will never, ever, be able to
reliably get OTA content that will ever under any circumstances compare
to cable or sat. Period.

I can respect the tenets of what you believe in, but can't accept the
gross misrepresentation of reality. Sorry.

Additionally, you completely fail to consider the effects of converged
networking. That alone kills your premise deader than the proverbial
doorknob.


Bob Miller Wrote:
> jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
> They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
> compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with
> a
> small sample of what is to come.
>
> Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible
> and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits
> its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD
> channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by
> some other factor.
>
> Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
> transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
> Why do you think the CEA pushed for 8-VSB so hard. They openly talked
> of
> it being handicapped with no mobile and how that was supposedly good
> for
> HD. Was it? CEA seems totally uninterested in OTA now that they have
> saddled it with 8-VSB. Wonder why?
>
> COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200
> and only because a Chinese maker decided to get their feet wet with
> WalMart. Don't you think it will be strange when that 3rd world
> country
> China has $10 DMB-T HD receivers which work far better than the $200
> 8-VSB receivers they are selling to us? Who is the third world country
> then?
>
> No they have kept the lid on and called COFDM the delayer while the
> truth is that 8-VSB has caused the delay and was meant to. But they
> can
> do it only so long and I think their time is running out.
>
> Bob Miller


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr
January 27, 2005 3:39:46 PM

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

<jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1106838764.405076.163260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
> trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the
> script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke"
> or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down
> this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in.
> Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be
> advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can
> see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather.
>
The producers of content benefit from product placement, that they share
this revenue with Network affiliates is not likely, but if I'm wrong please
correct me. Content producers and networks also generate revenue by selling
season episodes on DVD, again do station owners benefit? Viewers benefit,
well as long as they are not subjected to prime time infomercials
masquerading as TV shows, with the networks and producers (IMO) responding
to viewer demands for HD programming with much more zeal then content
providers.

Cable company have had the opportunity to weight their risk of shrinking
revenue associated with DVRs and acted, as they should, in their best
interest. While being offended by statements proclaiming individuals that
advance thru or leave the room during commercial thieves it does illustrate
the concern over digital recording. IMO suggesting that network providers
only motivation for asking cable providers to pony up is greed is not all
together fair. A business owner has to make decisions that will ensure that
the company will survive, that the free TV business model would change to
survive was never in question.
January 27, 2005 7:03:48 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and
>satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out.

But where are these 5th generation tuners? I know LG has one that I
believe is exclusive to some of their 2005 model HDTVs. Your case is
basicly that 5th generation tuners pave the way for Sinclair and other
broadcasters to break free from cable, but why? and how?

4th generation tuners are still $200 and People who are just now buying
sets have more options (the 8VSB integrated sets are finally starting
to become at least as common of HD Ready sets, but most of these are
4th gen tuners from best I can tell.

So let's say three years from now all HDTV sets sold include 5th gen
8VSB tuners and let's even say that external 8VSB tuners will have
dropped to around $40 by then and let's take it a step further and say
that broadcasters have begun offering 16 channels OTA each by that
time. Explain how exactly the OTA broadcasters are going to compete
with cable? The only way they could compete is if they had
subscribers. If they charged a monthly fee then free OTA goes away
entirely (bad), but if they do that then they become a services company
and have to build out the infrastructure to handle all of this. They
would also piss off all of the public, because they would have elimate
FREE OTA TV all togeather -and- they would be forcing the US public to
pick betweeen NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.. and the cable stations. That
makes no sense what so ever... it doesn't make good business sense. If
they were competitors the idea thing to do would be to charge one other
to carry the networks they own. If I understand correctly this is what
happens now with cable/sat companies.

If all of this content is offered for FREE OTA then again, they are not
competing with cable, everyone would just have both. Some people may
opt to leave their cable providers, but if the networks were wise they
would offer their channels to any subscription based carrier they could
find as it will widen their audience (it will always widen their
audience until 8VSB tuners are free, because not everyone will have
one), again if the OTA networks aren't charging a subscription FEE they
are not competing with sat or cable. You could argue they are for
advertising dollars, but the local networks have had them beat their
for years.

Cable companies are already building strategy against something like
this. Time Warner offers digital phone (VoIP), digital cable and high
speed internet for one flat monthly fee (discounted slightly to
subscribers of all three services). In addition to High Definition DVR
they have extended their on demand content to include about 100 free on
demand programs each month. They have also recently added High
Definiton on demand movies.... If OTA networks wanted to charge for
service and compete the only way they will be able to is to appeal to
the bottom end of the market.

I'd love to hear your response.
January 28, 2005 12:23:53 AM

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

You did not answer the question about how customers are going to get
these 5th gen 8VSB recievers to make all this work, in fact you
diverted to USDTV like services which have no future as the failure of
USDTV has shown. For you concept to even be considered as plausable
this question you would need a solid answer to this question and you
don't have one.


When I mentioned that customers would have to pick cable or local,
you've said they wouldn't pick they would simply drop cable (which of
course would be picking). You suggest the local networks are going to
create 400 something new channels in the next four-five years (is that
your time frame, I don't think you've given one, but you're implying
near future best I can tell), not going to happen.... Look at how long
it's taken the cable companies to get it right (and I'm not saying they
have it 100% right), but out of 350+ channels I have I have a select
10-15 that are watched in my household regularly, my mother in law has
a different set of 10-15, my brother yet another set. You see we don't
need 350 channels, but it's taken cable a long time to do it right.
Where is their funding going to come from to create an additonal 350
channels? Why is advertiser X going to pay the OTA networks new
counterpart to ESPN (which according to you will be a new subscription
based service) for advertising when ESPN has been proven for a long
time. If the networks charge for these new channels that you envision
THEY are starting at ground zero, they have to prove themselfs... They
will fail.

In order to provider 300+ stations the cable/sat companies "share"
networks (CNN, ESPN, A&E, etc...), I asume by charging one another
broadcasting rihgts to the networks they own. If a customer selects
satellite or cable, for the most part they are getting the same choice
of networks... To assume local OTA can just magicly create new
counterparts to all these statons, have them compete and win is
irrational. Explain exactly how they could do this? Don't jump around
the question as you have the 8VSB.


>Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they
>own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the
means
>to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back
>customers you have lost over the years to cable?

It only makes sense if the OTA networks charge, otherwise they haven't
lost anything when their content is broadcast on cable. How have they
lost? They only lose if the cable company is collecting a fee they
could be collecting themselfs.. then again, that's not FREE
television. Regardless of how you position this, your stance is
anti-Free High Defintion OTA programming. Which is bad for the
industry, why should customers have to pay more for High Defintion
content... Your thoughts are more along the lines of why shouldn't they
have to pay...


>No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content
>but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and
>offering a less expensive package.

I never disagreed with that, if they are charging any fee then they are
most definately competing... but if they charge a fee they still must
incure the cost of becoming a services company... From a customer
support department to a accouting office to contracting maintence
techs.. There is a huge cost their that you ignore.. and to really
compete they would have to provide all the services of at least a
satellite provider.


> They CAN'T by law charge for the free
>SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel
now.
>OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters
if
>they sign up as subscribers just like cable.

All high level details... explain to me how they will get these 8VSB
5th gen tunners into homes, explain how they will magicly create these
300+ channels, explain how they are going to steal advertising and
subscribers from cable. In your mind the pricing is everything, You
position your ideas as visionary, but they aren't. They are old school
thinking. By integrating phone, high speed internet and subscription
televison services

>There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with
cable
>on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected
for
>years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises.
There

If you see a "flood" on the horizon, I challenge you to name five right
now. Broadband cable has had competion for years ISDN lines were
available long before, and DSL is available now (often for cheaper I
might add), yet still DSL falls behind, because it's not consist, it's
not realable. In Houston TimeWarner is already setting up wireless
access points around the city for their subscribers, cable companies
have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they
can combine services and provide a discount.

-Jeremy
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:35:24 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

> See in-line:
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA. They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with a small sample of what is to come.
>>
> >
> If you're refering to services such as USDTV, well USDTV has been around for a year or so now and I'm not seeing sings of growth. Where's the public interest. It's not there yet.

USDTV does not have MPEG4 or a receiver that is viable yet. I thought
they would fail by now. I thought they were crazy. They offer 11 or 12
channels and not the greatest selection even in those 12. They have all
the problems of 8-VSB so they have to pick cities like Las Vegas, Salt
Lake City and Albuquerque all cities with mountains around them, few
trees and in bowls.

However with MPEG4 they can offer more channels now and up to 16 SD
channels digital in a single analog SD channel. With 5th gen receivers
they can offer their service everywhere including such as NYC. Never
would have tried that before 5th gen.
>
>
>>Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by some other factor.
>
>
> So for their investment in DTV infrastructure the OTA networks have gained more channel bandwidth. You imply over MPEG-2 they can do 16 SD
> channels at present, but how many HD channels can they deliver? Part of your vision for this seems to require the scaling back of HD content in
> favor of SD content, which I certainly hope doesn't happen.

No 16 SD channels with MPEG4 in two to three years, about 11-12 now with
MPEG4 as apposed to a maximum of 8 now with MPEG2 if you have the most
expensive equipment.

>
>
>>Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
>
> I don't see the threat to cable/sat providers? OTA networks are in the advertising and broadcasting business, you underestimate the services
> infrastructure (enormous cost) they would have to build out to lease equipment, perform maintence, set up billing department) at the very
> least this would be a huge risk for them. What's more likely would be for them to partner with companies such as USDTV and again, I'm not
> seeing a success story with USDTV. To some degree OTA networks need cable providers, to a lesser degree the opposite can be said.

With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and
satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out. Note
that Sinclair is getting pretty aggressive with cable and HDTV. Expect
more. They are natural competitors with two different modes of delivery.
They should be competing not using the government like broadcasters are
to USE the competitors distribution network via must carry.
>
> I see the DTV transition as being something we're in the middle of. Look at how many HD ready sets are being sold today vs a year ago. Look
> at the price drops, look at the number of HD channels bein broadcast today vs a year ago, if you can't see progress being made towards the
> "transition" they are you selectively ignoring it.

There is NO transition for OTA. What you are talking about is cable and
satellite. All those people buying HD sets, how many to watch DVDs? how
many will not even hook up to any HD source? Very few will hook up to
OTA. They will wait till they get a free HD receiver from their cable or
satellite company. The US OTA spectrum was used by fewer people last
year than the year before and that has been true for the last 40 years.
It is down to less than 10% IMO.>
>
>
>>COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is
>
> $200...
>
> Please stop preaching about COFDM, hopefully by now you realize it's a
> lost effort (regardless of if you are right or wrong).

COFDM and now maybe the Chinese modulation DMB-T are NOT lost efforts. I
expect a resurgence in interest regarding dropping 8-VSB in the next
year. Here is a letter from a top DoD video Engineer. The DoD was always
a strong proponent of DVB-T COFDM.

"A month or so ago I received an interesting briefing from a company
that wanted to use ATSC / 8VSB to deliver data to fire departments and other
first responders. They had no clue about who they were briefing (my
history, etc.), other than my current title. Their business plan was for
the fire engine to get all the way to the site of the fire where they
would stop then they would be able to receive data about where the fire
was. I
gently pointed out to them that once the fire department got to the
fire, they kind of knew where the fire was and would not wait around the
fire
engine for data to arrive - firemen tend to run into the fire first
thing when they get there. The point to the story is, as thick as these
folks
were, even they knew they could not receive 8VSB data while the truck
was moving (they must have tested their system prior to deployment - what a
concept).

To quote a lawyer from my swimming with sharks experience a few years
back, ATSC is great, it works 75% of the time for fixed locations. To
which my
boss's boss responded, we tend to like communications channels to work
somewhere in the high 90s.

I am now also enjoying HDTV via my DirecTV HDTV receiver, which also has
an integral OTA ATSC decoder. Lots of signal strength for my Fox channel
(signal bars full strength), but I can not watch it at all - the picture
breaks up so often that it makes any sports program (Redskins football,
etc.) too painful to watch (pain on multiple levels), so I have to watch
Fox via SDTV satellite, no OTA HDTV for me. I know why the reception is so
bad - a one story hill behind my house causes a large standing
reflection, which we noted long ago when my house was one of the ATSC DC
test sites.
8VSB does not work for me, never has, never will. I also can not
receive the local digital UPN station. The signal strength swings from
0 to 80+
every couple of seconds, which never gives the decoder a chance to lock
up and display a signal. So back to DirecTV for UPN at my house, no
HDTV Star
Trek Enterprise for me.

The COFDM proponents lost the political fight several years back, but
they were still right - 8VSB was a poor choice for our nation. Isn't it a
wonderful irony that 8VSB was added to the ATSC specification as a bone
to the last US TV manufacturer, which was subsequently sold to a foreign
company who now owns the patents on 8VSB. Simply lovely.

It was cool to read Voom is going to add hundreds of channels of
satellite based HDTV. It is cool to get local traffic and weather on my
XM satellite
radio now, and they even have emergency channel provisions now in case
things go stupid. Maybe the most cynical people I heard during the
8VSB/COFDM wars were right all along - the choice of 8VSB was a method
to kill over the air TV so everyone would move to cable and satellite
then the
OTA spectrum would be sold off once and for all. If all of the HDTV is
over satellite, and now the last uses for local service (local traffic,
weather, and emergency broadcasts) are replaced by satellite service,
why would we need local OTA digital service anymore? Inquiring minds
want to
know.

To my old friends on this list, hello, I've been away for awhile, busy
fighting a couple of wars recently. But my duties are changing soon, and I
am thinking about getting back into the digital Motion Imagery game.
Watch this space."


>
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:50:11 AM

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

wmhjr wrote:

> You're nuts.
>
> Way too much of the population just can't reliably get either 8-VSB or COFDM content due to geographic constraints. That doesn't even begin
> to consider the factor of range and signal variables particularly with COFDM.

Range? The supposed power advantage of 8-VSB is being definitely put to
rest by Chinese test ongoing across China. COFDM with its latest
algorithms (COFDM is constantly improving to) now has a 2.5 db advantage
or almost 100% over 8-VSB. I will post more specific results as I get them.

As to signal variables I don't know what you are talking about. The
worst "geographical constraints" are places like New York City and this
video show COFDM working all over that city Mobile from ONE 100 Watt
amplifier where 8-VSB is not receivable with special antennas and
800,000 Watts.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv


I actually agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get a healthy
dose of reality. For example, your proposed solution would be
> death to my area. To be clear - I will never, ever, be able to reliably get OTA content that will ever under any circumstances compare
> to cable or sat. Period.

Where do you live? Our solution covers the entire US with a strong even
signal at a far far higher power level than satellite and far more
ubiquitous than current OTA. And with content that WILL compare
favorably with cable and satellite and at less cost.
>
> I can respect the tenets of what you believe in, but can't accept the gross misrepresentation of reality. Sorry.

Your reality not mine.
>
> Additionally, you completely fail to consider the effects of converged networking. That alone kills your premise deader than the proverbial doorknob.
>
We fancy ourselves part of the converged networks of the future. An
adjunct not a dinosaur. We consider our place in the converged networks
of the future all the time as I have mentioned here often.\

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 6:14:02 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and
>>satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out.
>
>
> But where are these 5th generation tuners? I know LG has one that I
> believe is exclusive to some of their 2005 model HDTVs. Your case is
> basicly that 5th generation tuners pave the way for Sinclair and other
> broadcasters to break free from cable, but why? and how?

Cable makes money off of the programming that broadcasters deliver.
Broadcasters would like to make some or all of that income especially
when it comes to HD. Why shouldn't they. How? By delivering the content
using their OTA spectrum instead of allowing cable to deliver it.
>
> 4th generation tuners are still $200 and People who are just now buying
> sets have more options (the 8VSB integrated sets are finally starting
> to become at least as common of HD Ready sets, but most of these are
> 4th gen tuners from best I can tell.
>
> So let's say three years from now all HDTV sets sold include 5th gen
> 8VSB tuners and let's even say that external 8VSB tuners will have
> dropped to around $40 by then and let's take it a step further and say
> that broadcasters have begun offering 16 channels OTA each by that
> time. Explain how exactly the OTA broadcasters are going to compete
> with cable? The only way they could compete is if they had
> subscribers. If they charged a monthly fee then free OTA goes away
> entirely (bad), but if they do that then they become a services company
> and have to build out the infrastructure to handle all of this.

They have the infrastructure in place to broadcast. They need receivers
with conditional access and encryption. No problem, if cable can deliver
these receivers broadcasters can. USDTV is doing this now. The
broadcasters have a big advantage over cable companies. No cables or
maintenance thereof. They sell their programming and other content via a
subscription service.

Free OTA does not go away. Each channel is still required to deliver ONE
free program of SD quality, same as today. Broadcasters just take
advantage of the fact that with digital they can deliver 15 more
programs with each channel and they can charge for it. The more exotic
idea is that they would NOT do this. You ask why and how and I say how
could you stop them and why not.

You are locked into status quo thinking and it seems obvious to me as it
will be obvious to everyone after they do it that it is very obvious.

Cable only exists because in the beginning OTA didn't work well. 8-VSB
carried on in this tradition. IT DOESN'T work very well. COFDM was
AVOIDED specifically because it worked TOO well. But with 5th gen
receivers 8-VSB can now work WELL ENOUGH. But funny thing, where are the
5th gen receivers?

You ask where are the 5th gen receivers? I answer why did they foist
8-VSB on us in the first place? Why did they have fraudulent test to
discredit COFDM? Why did it take 5 years to get a decent receiver for
8-VSB when they said they had one in 1999 that worked mobile? Why did it
take 5 years when in early 2001 they said they would do it in six
months? And yes now that they have 5th gen receivers that work, WHERE
ARE THEY?

How dense do they think we are? Pretty dense!! And they are being proved
right.

Big business is getting very arrogant in its disregard for the
intelligence of the electorate. It is getting more blatant in its use of
our Congress to steal from us. When do we wake up?

5th gen receivers will only appear in integrated sets because this is
not about getting the transition done it is about making the most money
possible from each sale and delaying the transition as long as possible.

Other wise they would have inexpensive receivers that work with analog
sets by now. Something they also promised in the misty dim past of 2001.


Bob Miller

> They would also piss off all of the public, because they would have elimate
> FREE OTA TV all togeather -and- they would be forcing the US public to
> pick betweeen NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.. and the cable stations.

No not pick drop. Drop cable because you can receive NBC, ABC, CBS and
FOX free with an OTA receiver and you can receive 475 other channels by
subscription OTA. Why should the public be mad? With PVR who needs more
than 475 channels with the rest free? They will be paying substantially
less than they do now for cable and will NOT be paying cable to receive
FREE OTA channels like they are now.


> That makes no sense what so ever... it doesn't make good business sense. If
> they were competitors the idea thing to do would be to charge one other
> to carry the networks they own. If I understand correctly this is what
> happens now with cable/sat companies.

Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they
own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the means
to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back
customers you have lost over the years to cable? What you say makes no
sense.


>
> If all of this content is offered for FREE OTA then again, they are not
> competing with cable, everyone would just have both. Some people may
> opt to leave their cable providers, but if the networks were wise they
> would offer their channels to any subscription based carrier they could
> find as it will widen their audience (it will always widen their
> audience until 8VSB tuners are free, because not everyone will have
> one), again if the OTA networks aren't charging a subscription FEE they
> are not competing with sat or cable. You could argue they are for
> advertising dollars, but the local networks have had them beat their
> for years.

No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content
but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and
offering a less expensive package. They CAN'T by law charge for the free
SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel now.
OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters if
they sign up as subscribers just like cable.
>
> Cable companies are already building strategy against something like
> this. Time Warner offers digital phone (VoIP), digital cable and high
> speed internet for one flat monthly fee (discounted slightly to
> subscribers of all three services). In addition to High Definition DVR
> they have extended their on demand content to include about 100 free on
> demand programs each month. They have also recently added High
> Definiton on demand movies.... If OTA networks wanted to charge for
> service and compete the only way they will be able to is to appeal to
> the bottom end of the market.

There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with cable
on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected for
years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises. There
will be a flood of WiLan and 60 GHz and 70 and 80 GHZ radios used by
ISP's and even individuals that will bypass cable companies with NO need
for franchises. They will offer all the things that cable offers and
will also be the real NEW competition for broadcasters. This is why
broadcasters should have demanded COFDM.

In the future, out five years, broadcasters will like cable and
satellite come under stiff competition from wireless broadband. This
will be really wild. The one area left for broadcasters will be mobile
and portable broadcasting but 8-VSB can't handle it. It is then that the
new age broadcaster, Qualcomm and Crown Castle and maybe Sirius and XM
will win out.

In the end there are only mobile broadcasters mobile wireless broadband
and wireless broadband providers. If broadcasters and cable companies
can morph into those areas they may survive but if history serves they
won't morph and they won't survive.

Has anyone noticed that cable companies are among the most leveraged
companies still in existence. A little breeze will do them in.

Bob Miller
>
> I'd love to hear your response.
>
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 10:37:25 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

> You did not answer the question about how customers are going to get
> these 5th gen 8VSB recievers to make all this work, in fact you
> diverted to USDTV like services which have no future as the failure of
> USDTV has shown. For you concept to even be considered as plausable
> this question you would need a solid answer to this question and you
> don't have one.

I see no failure of USDTV. I see a company waiting for their MPEG4 5th
gen receivers before proceeding. Customers will get their receivers
just as they do now with USDTV, go to WalMart and pick it up. With USDTV
they cost $19.95.

They seem to think that ATI has a better 5th gen chip than LG. We will
have to wait and see.
>
>
> When I mentioned that customers would have to pick cable or local,
> you've said they wouldn't pick they would simply drop cable (which of
> course would be picking). You suggest the local networks are going to
> create 400 something new channels in the next four-five years (is that
> your time frame, I don't think you've given one, but you're implying
> near future best I can tell), not going to happen.... Look at how long
> it's taken the cable companies to get it right (and I'm not saying they
> have it 100% right), but out of 350+ channels I have I have a select
> 10-15 that are watched in my household regularly, my mother in law has
> a different set of 10-15, my brother yet another set. You see we don't
> need 350 channels, but it's taken cable a long time to do it right.
> Where is their funding going to come from to create an additonal 350
> channels? Why is advertiser X going to pay the OTA networks new
> counterpart to ESPN (which according to you will be a new subscription
> based service) for advertising when ESPN has been proven for a long
> time. If the networks charge for these new channels that you envision
> THEY are starting at ground zero, they have to prove themselfs... They
> will fail.


>
> In order to provider 300+ stations the cable/sat companies "share"
> networks (CNN, ESPN, A&E, etc...), I asume by charging one another
> broadcasting rihgts to the networks they own. If a customer selects
> satellite or cable, for the most part they are getting the same choice
> of networks... To assume local OTA can just magicly create new
> counterparts to all these statons, have them compete and win is
> irrational. Explain exactly how they could do this? Don't jump around
> the question as you have the 8VSB.

I think the broadcaster will carry the current ESPN. Why would they have
to create a duplicate of anything? They just carry the best content
currently available. Same cost per sub as cable pays but with one
quarter the maintenance cost. Cable and satellite and OTA all carrying
the same content only OTA has a lower price and no charge for local
channels. OTA is just another and better way of delivering content but
with the FCC dictating that one program per channel must be free.

If I have jumped around any question relating to 8-VSB would you please
tell me which one it was.
>
>
>
>>Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they
>>own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the
>
> means
>
>>to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back
>>customers you have lost over the years to cable?
>
>
> It only makes sense if the OTA networks charge, otherwise they haven't
> lost anything when their content is broadcast on cable. How have they
> lost? They only lose if the cable company is collecting a fee they
> could be collecting themselfs.. then again, that's not FREE
> television. Regardless of how you position this, your stance is
> anti-Free High Defintion OTA programming. Which is bad for the
> industry, why should customers have to pay more for High Defintion
> content... Your thoughts are more along the lines of why shouldn't they
> have to pay...
>

I am not anti anything but the modulation 8-VSB. Stating the obvious,
that to make the most money broadcasters will multicast and retain their
best content or even all of their content for a cable like OTA
subscription service, is not being anti HD. Most broadcasters are public
companies. They could be sued by their shareholders if the don't do
this. They have NO obligation to early adopters who claim inalienable
rights to the HD resolution.

Viewers with OTA receivers will NOT have to pay for ONE SD channel
broadcast free OTA as prescribed by Congress. Thats it. I suspect that
if broadcasters elect to deliver HD it will be with MPEG4 with a
subscription service. They will satisfy the Congressional demand for a
free program with ONE SD program period.


>
>>No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content
>>but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and
>>offering a less expensive package.
>
>
> I never disagreed with that, if they are charging any fee then they are
> most definately competing... but if they charge a fee they still must
> incure the cost of becoming a services company... From a customer
> support department to a accouting office to contracting maintence
> techs.. There is a huge cost their that you ignore.. and to really
> compete they would have to provide all the services of at least a
> satellite provider.

I didn't ignore it I just said it is about a quarter of the cost
incurred by cable. I don't think they can compete. And they don't have
to provide the number of channels that a satellite provider has to
either. Number of channels is not that important anymore.
>
>
>
>>They CAN'T by law charge for the free SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel now. OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters if
they sign up as subscribers just like cable.
>
>
> All high level details... explain to me how they will get these 8VSB 5th gen tunners into homes, explain how they will magicly create these
> 300+ channels, explain how they are going to steal advertising and subscribers from cable. In your mind the pricing is everything, You
> position your ideas as visionary, but they aren't. They are old school thinking. By integrating phone, high speed internet and subscription
> televison services

They pick up the receiver at WalMart as they sign up for the
subscription service. The programming content is magically created by
content creators and sold to cable, satellite and now OTA. USDTV had 12
such channels, new ventures will have 50 and more. You pick up the phone
and you call content providers and sign contracts to air their content
in your subscription service and you pay them per sub. Pretty simple stuff.
>
>
>>There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with cable on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected for years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises.
>
>
> If you see a "flood" on the horizon, I challenge you to name five right now. Broadband cable has had competion for years ISDN lines were
> available long before, and DSL is available now (often for cheaper I might add), yet still DSL falls behind, because it's not consist, it's
> not realable. In Houston TimeWarner is already setting up wireless access points around the city for their subscribers, cable companies
> have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they can combine services and provide a discount.

I did not mention ISDN or DSL, I mentioned broadband wireless. The
equipment is just now becoming available. It presents competitors the
ability to offer services without the need of a franchise and without
the need to wire up a whole city. Cable will be eaten alive by multiple
providers who offer a wide assortment of innovative and personalized
services. You will see Gbps mesh networks growing organically soon. NOT
your fathers ISDN or DSL.

Cables "infrastructure " is what will cause their demise. Billions of
debt tied up in infrastructure. The credit markets are not going to fund
another round of infrastructure building on top of the mountains of debt
they already have. The credit markets are going to fund the new upstarts
who have NO debt going in. Cable had a monopoly and that is why they
were funded. NO LONGER. By by credit. And once they are on that slippery
slope its all one way.

Bob Miller
>
> -Jeremy
>
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 10:49:15 AM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:


> ... cable companies
> have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they
> can combine services and provide a discount.
>
> -Jeremy
>
One more thing. Think of cable companies like the airlines before
deregulation and now. New upstarts are killing off the old airlines
because the old airlines have lots of debt and pensions, an old way of
dealing with passengers and they can't seem to change.

There is no government deregulation of cable companies but they are in
the same boat since their franchise monopoly that protected then against
all competition except satellite is not going to protect them from new
broadcasters using mobile receivers that happen to work fixed to on DTV
spectrum being auctioned, old broadcasters using 5th gen 8-VSB receivers
and MPEG4 and new wireless two way broadband Internet. All these can
deliver a TV experience that competes with cable where they have had no
competition before except satellite and satellite has not been doing
that bad.

But satellite has problems that these new upstarts do NOT have. Cable is
a grave risk from at least the three fronts I listed all of which do not
need a franchise and can deliver what cable does. In the case of
broadband wireless that included VOD, VOIP, HD etc. In the case of
mobile broadcast they deliver mobile witch cable cannot match. I simply
cannot imagine cable surviving the coming battles. It will look ancient
and decrepit in comparison.

Bob Miller
!