Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FCC kills Multicast Must Carry 4-1

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:52:49 PM

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

Best news for HD and OTA in five years.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA502996.html?displ...

Now broadcasters will have to rely far more on their OTA spectrum.
Expect major changes. Expect broadcasters to demand a better modulation.
Expect cable killer broadcast ventures like USDTV to sprout in all major
cities.

Broadcasters have focused like a laser on multicast must carry since at
least 1999. They acquiesced to the pressure by Congress to not vote for
COFDM because they were threatened with losing this fight. Congress
directly threatened them with loss of multicast must carry and even
spectrum. They have now lost.

This will be a rough re-awakening to the reality that they are in the
first place BROADCASTERS that are supposed to reach their customers OVER
THE AIR not riding on their competitors cable investment.

I think the FCC did broadcasters a favor in more than one way. One way
is that they saved them from a return to court to again battle for must
carry. A fight they would have lost totally IMO. They would have lost
ALL multicast privileges.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:52:50 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Best news for HD and OTA in five years.
>
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA502996.html?displ...
>
>
> Now broadcasters will have to rely far more on their OTA spectrum.

Or they can concentrate on HD to the exclusion of multicasting.

> Expect major changes.

Like wholesale abandonment of multicasting.

> Expect broadcasters to demand a better modulation.

They don't need that. They have the best modulation scheme for far field
reception.

> Expect cable killer broadcast ventures like USDTV to sprout in all major
> cities.

HOWLS OF DERISIVE LAUGHTER!!! CABLE KILLER!!!!! WOW, YOU ARE FUNNY!!!!!

You should try going to the gym. Leaping to conclusions seems to be the
only exercise you get.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
February 10, 2005 8:52:50 PM

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

You have GOT to be kidding - please! Put down those sharp objects
before somebody gets hurt!

How exactly do you expect those millions of people who have geographic
constraints in their way to get content? What about all the content
that DOESN'T originate in your area?

If YOU want to live in 1960 no problem. Their are countries all over
the world that can satisfy that need. While I'm really glad that OTA
exists, converged networking alone precludes your entire suggestion.
Just plain, not, possible.

Bob Miller Wrote:
> Best news for HD and OTA in five years.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/55mwd
>
> Now broadcasters will have to rely far more on their OTA spectrum.
> Expect major changes. Expect broadcasters to demand a better
> modulation.
> Expect cable killer broadcast ventures like USDTV to sprout in all
> major
> cities.
>
> Broadcasters have focused like a laser on multicast must carry since
> at
> least 1999. They acquiesced to the pressure by Congress to not vote
> for
> COFDM because they were threatened with losing this fight. Congress
> directly threatened them with loss of multicast must carry and even
> spectrum. They have now lost.
>
> This will be a rough re-awakening to the reality that they are in the
> first place BROADCASTERS that are supposed to reach their customers
> OVER
> THE AIR not riding on their competitors cable investment.
>
> I think the FCC did broadcasters a favor in more than one way. One way
> is that they saved them from a return to court to again battle for
> must
> carry. A fight they would have lost totally IMO. They would have lost
> ALL multicast privileges.
>
> Bob Miller


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr
Related resources
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:52:51 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Bob Miller wrote:
> > Expect major changes.
>
> Like wholesale abandonment of multicasting.

Actually, this isn't likely.

First, since only "must carry" is in this ruling, there's nothing to stop a
broadcaster from asking for carriage outside the "must carry" rules. This
has happened to sub-channels from 3 stations here in the DC area, primarily
because they have *real* content, not infomercials.

Second, stations that are affiliated with stupid networks who dictate
multicasting at the network level (Pax is the best example) just don't give
a damn. They'll continue to send out 5 extra streams that nobody watches,
because it doesn't cost them a dime to do so.

The biggest win, though, was the 5-0 vote that shot down "dual" must carry,
so that cable companies and DBS aren't required to carry both HD and SD
signals of the same content. This will very likely change broadcasts from
stations that do this incredibly useless thing, and it's about damn time.

--
Jeff Rife | "This? This is ice. This is what happens to
| water when it gets too cold. This? This is
| Kent. This is what happens to people when
| they get too sexually frustrated."
| -- Chris Knight, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 4:02:51 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RbNOd.4999$mG6.312@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Best news for HD and OTA in five years.
>
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA502996.html?displ...
>
> Now broadcasters will have to rely far more on their OTA spectrum. Expect
> major changes. Expect broadcasters to demand a better modulation. Expect
> cable killer broadcast ventures like USDTV to sprout in all major cities.
>
> Broadcasters have focused like a laser on multicast must carry since at
> least 1999. They acquiesced to the pressure by Congress to not vote for
> COFDM because they were threatened with losing this fight. Congress
> directly threatened them with loss of multicast must carry and even
> spectrum. They have now lost.
>
> This will be a rough re-awakening to the reality that they are in the
> first place BROADCASTERS that are supposed to reach their customers OVER
> THE AIR not riding on their competitors cable investment.
>
> I think the FCC did broadcasters a favor in more than one way. One way is
> that they saved them from a return to court to again battle for must
> carry. A fight they would have lost totally IMO. They would have lost ALL
> multicast privileges.
>
> Bob Miller

I know that one day, perhaps soon, I will purchase an OTA HDTV receiver.
When I do, I just might discontinue my use of cable. (As it is, I only
watch at most 5 to 10 channels on cable. The rest are of no interest to
me.)

I've been asking myself if I am against multicasting, preferring instead
just high definition programming, or if I am in favor of multicasting, and
thus offering me a more extensive list of programs to choose from.

I think that I want something in between. Somehow, using OTA, I would like
to have HD programming plus some of the good channels that I can now find
only on cable. (My cable favorites are CNN, AMC, New England Cable Network,
and Discovery.)

Is this possible? A sort of middle ground? Can CNN end up on OTA?

Neil
Salem, MA USA
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 5:34:13 PM

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

Neil - Salem, MA USA (Neil@Salem.Massachusetts.USA) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I think that I want something in between. Somehow, using OTA, I would like
> to have HD programming plus some of the good channels that I can now find
> only on cable. (My cable favorites are CNN, AMC, New England Cable Network,
> and Discovery.)
>
> Is this possible? A sort of middle ground? Can CNN end up on OTA?

Not for a price that is competetive with cable. If you *like* paying $1-2
per channel for a very limited selection of channels, then, yes, there
will probably be some services that offer channels like CNN as a pay service
on OTA.

But, instead of paying $20 for less than 15 cable channels, you can probably
pay $40 for 80 (or more).

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/NoWetFood...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:45:41 PM

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

Neil - Salem, MA USA wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:RbNOd.4999$mG6.312@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Best news for HD and OTA in five years.
>>
>>http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA502996.html?displ...
>>
>>Now broadcasters will have to rely far more on their OTA spectrum. Expect
>>major changes. Expect broadcasters to demand a better modulation. Expect
>>cable killer broadcast ventures like USDTV to sprout in all major cities.
>>
>>Broadcasters have focused like a laser on multicast must carry since at
>>least 1999. They acquiesced to the pressure by Congress to not vote for
>>COFDM because they were threatened with losing this fight. Congress
>>directly threatened them with loss of multicast must carry and even
>>spectrum. They have now lost.
>>
>>This will be a rough re-awakening to the reality that they are in the
>>first place BROADCASTERS that are supposed to reach their customers OVER
>>THE AIR not riding on their competitors cable investment.
>>
>>I think the FCC did broadcasters a favor in more than one way. One way is
>>that they saved them from a return to court to again battle for must
>>carry. A fight they would have lost totally IMO. They would have lost ALL
>>multicast privileges.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
> I know that one day, perhaps soon, I will purchase an OTA HDTV receiver.
> When I do, I just might discontinue my use of cable. (As it is, I only
> watch at most 5 to 10 channels on cable. The rest are of no interest to
> me.)
>
> I've been asking myself if I am against multicasting, preferring instead
> just high definition programming, or if I am in favor of multicasting, and
> thus offering me a more extensive list of programs to choose from.
>
> I think that I want something in between. Somehow, using OTA, I would like
> to have HD programming plus some of the good channels that I can now find
> only on cable. (My cable favorites are CNN, AMC, New England Cable Network,
> and Discovery.)
>
> Is this possible? A sort of middle ground? Can CNN end up on OTA?
>
> Neil
> Salem, MA USA
>
>
Yes! and will very soon. OTA is just another delivery method and now
finally it will work minimally because of LG's 5th gen receiver.

Broadcasters are allowed to do whatever they want with their spectrum
after they deliver ONE SD program free with MPEG2. Expect them to offer
ALL HD with MPEG4 and in most cases as part of a subscription based
service. This cable win at the FCC yesterday will finally free
broadcasters to look at their OTA spectrum for the first time in at
least 8 years.

Broadcasters would use at most 3 Mbps for the MPEG2 SD free program and
then be able to efficiently deliver more programming on the other 16.34
Mbps.

It would be crazy to deliver HD with MPEG2 thus using up most of their
bits in an agonizingly inefficient way. Of course this makes all current
8-VSB receivers only capable of receiving that ONE SD MPEG2 program. The
only receiver that maybe able to handle MPEG4 is the USDTV one. That is
what they claim anyway.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:58:05 PM

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

Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> With real competition for the ground TV service, Verizon might
> well offer you the choice of picking 10 to 20 specific channels you want
> to watch and at a reduced cost.

They might, if they want to lose money. ESPN costs providers nearly $3 per
subscriber, but the entire "Disney" package (all the ESPNs, ABC Family,
Disney, Toon Disney, etc.) costs only slightly more than $4/per subscriber.

The same is true for the Fox-owned channels, the Warner-owned channels,
the Viacom-owned channels, the Discovery networks, etc. Getting *all* the
channels instead of just cherry-picking a few is usually only a few
dollars more.

Then, too, there's the ruling for cable and satellite companies where
they must carry "public service" channels. I doubt that Verizon would
be allowed to avoid this, so they would have to have things like C-Span,
and local "cable access" channels. Although it wouldn't cost them fees
for many of these channels, it would cost them for the actual physical
supply of the channels.

Still, I'm in the Maryland area that will be getting Verizon FIOS soon,
and I'm looking forward to it, because they will have a *much* larger
bandwidth than the cable companies, everything will be digital, and
with high-speed Internet, a package might be a great deal. But, don't
expect a sub-$20 monthly fee for channels your really want to see.

--
Jeff Rife | copy protection: n. A class of methods for
| preventing incompetent pirates from stealing
| software and legitimate customers from using it.
| Considered silly.
| -- Jargon File version 4.4.6
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:50:43 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Neil - Salem, MA USA (Neil@Salem.Massachusetts.USA) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I think that I want something in between. Somehow, using OTA, I would like
>>to have HD programming plus some of the good channels that I can now find
>>only on cable. (My cable favorites are CNN, AMC, New England Cable Network,
>>and Discovery.)
>>
>>Is this possible? A sort of middle ground? Can CNN end up on OTA?
>
>
> Not for a price that is competetive with cable. If you *like* paying $1-2
> per channel for a very limited selection of channels, then, yes, there
> will probably be some services that offer channels like CNN as a pay service
> on OTA.
>
> But, instead of paying $20 for less than 15 cable channels, you can probably
> pay $40 for 80 (or more).
>
Why only 15 cable channels? That happens to be close to what USDTV is
doing but does not limit others from offering more.

How many of the channels between your 15 and 80 are worth very much?

What if someone offered 50 channels for $40 and remember for every
channel in a market there is always one free SD or HD channel so $40 for
50 is really $40 for 60. You get your local channels free. USDTV is in
effect offering not 11 program channels but 11 plus all the free over
the air channels as well since their receiver cost only $19.95 and
receives all free to air channels. And USDTV has said they will go with
MPEG4 in all new markets so that will increase the quantity of
programming they can offer also.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:50:44 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> What if someone offered 50 channels for $40

Dish network is far more than 50 for $43. They
claim 120, but many of those are music only.
Remember that the $43 includes much of Sirius Radio.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:50:44 PM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > But, instead of paying $20 for less than 15 cable channels, you can probably
> > pay $40 for 80 (or more).
> >
> Why only 15 cable channels? That happens to be close to what USDTV is
> doing but does not limit others from offering more.

No, the fact that there isn't enough bandwidth out there is what limits
USDTV (and anyone similar) to 15 channels.

Networks that carry HD at the network level will soon be starting to
enforce HD carriage in their affiliate agreements. Since those agreements
have *always* had picture quality standards for analog, they will for HD,
as well. This means that no "real" station will have more than about
5-7Mbps to sell. With the stations that will refuse to sell anything
(like the multicast-happy PAX stations), this gives will leave room for
about 20 SD channels in most markets as a maximum.

Now, since real cable and satellite carry ESPN-HD, INHD, HDNet, etc.,
there will be competition for USDTV to start carrying these channels.
Either they do so and end up with room for 5-10 SD channels, or they
lose when HD takes over as the "standard definition" for cable and
satellite viewers.

Although every channel won't be HD very soon, enough major channels will
be by the end of 2006 (more than 30 cable channels by then) that anyone
not carrying HD will lose subscribers.

> How many of the channels between your 15 and 80 are worth very much?

That's not important. If a household watches 5-6 hours week on BBC
America and that channel isn't offered by a particular provider, that
provider will get *zero* income from that household. In place of BBC
America, substitute any of the following (which all have incredibly loyal
niche viewers), and people with brains (that excludes you, Bob) will
see the issue:

- Bravo
- FX
- Turner Classic Movies
- Spike
- Cartoon Network
- TV Land
- CNN/Fox News Channel/MSNBC (depending on political leaning :) 
- Food Network
- SciFi Channel
- SoapNet
- NASA channel (strange, but true)

I'm sure that I've missed 10 or more channels that have that "must have"
effect.

> What if someone offered 50 channels for $40

Big deal. For an extra $3/month I get 150 channels including my locals
with DirecTV. I can get about the same package from local cable for
around $10 more.

> and remember for every
> channel in a market there is always one free SD or HD channel so $40 for
> 50 is really $40 for 60.

USDTV can't handle 50 channels in most markets without reducing picture
quality to the point that the extra $3-10 would make any other provider
seem like a dream. No matter what Bob thinks, nobody is going to sell
off more 7Mbps of their bandwidth, and even with MPEG-4 you need 2Mbps
to give a watchable SD channel. That's *four* "cable" channels per
broadcast channel in one DMA. There are very few DMAs with 12 or more
broadcast channels, and even fewer where you could get them to sell their
bandwidth.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/CatsAndDo...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:50:45 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7715c6305c2567989b76@news.nabs.net...

< snip >

> USDTV can't handle 50 channels in most markets without reducing picture
> quality to the point ...

< snip >

A little off message, but that doesn't stop other people :-) What is the
upper limit, legally and technically, of the number of programs that will
fit into that 19-point-something MBps on an ATSC signal? I have seen five
at once and they looked OK. I didn't give them a critical inspection for
artifacts.

I spent about a half hour googling <multicast ATSC>. Lots of info, but I
didn't see that stat.

Thanks.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:50:46 PM

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

"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:KSdPd.70244$0u.15391@fed1read04...
>
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c7715c6305c2567989b76@news.nabs.net...
>
> < snip >
>
> > USDTV can't handle 50 channels in most markets without reducing picture
> > quality to the point ...
>
> < snip >
>
> A little off message, but that doesn't stop other people :-) What is the
> upper limit, legally and technically, of the number of programs that will
> fit into that 19-point-something MBps

..........................................................sorry, Mbps -- Sal

> on an ATSC signal? I have seen five
> at once and they looked OK. I didn't give them a critical inspection for
> artifacts.
>
> I spent about a half hour googling <multicast ATSC>. Lots of info, but I
> didn't see that stat.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 1:06:57 AM

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

Sal M. Onella (salmonella@food.poisoning.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> A little off message, bvt that doesn't stop other people :-) What is the
> vpper limit, legally and technically, of the nvmber of programs that will
> fit into that 19-point-something MBps on an ATSC signal? I have seen five
> at once and they looked OK. I didn't give them a critical inspection for
> artifacts.

There is no legal "vpper limit", and there really isn't a technical one
since the ATSC tables allow svb-channels vp to 99. Bvt, most encoders in
vse by stations today will not create a stream at less than abovt 1.5Mbps.
I don't know why they have this lower limit, bvt many tech people at stations
arovnd the covntry have posted to AVS forvm that they *have* to vse 2Mbps
for the weather radar becavse the encoder can't handle anything lower than
____ and the nvmber they svpply is always between 1 and 2 Mbps.

5 SD channels can look OK on ATSC, becavse that gives almost 4Mbps to each
of them. With a good sovrce and decent encoders, this will be abovt as good
as the best analog signal that NTSC can offer. 6Mbps wovld probably be
overkill for an SD svb-channel (vnless the sovrce was fast-moving sports
or something similar), while 2Mbps wovld be criminally vgly for everything
bvt "static" programs (like weather radar).

DirecTV manages to vse abovt 2.5Mbps for their SD channels becavse they
don't have to vse 720x480 as their resolvtion like ATSC SD does. Some
DirecTV SD channels are as low as 480x480, and it shows.

--
Jeff Rife | "Grab a shovel...I'm only one skvll
| short of a Movseketeer revnion."
|
| -- Bender, "Fvtvrama"
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 6:32:22 AM

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

Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
> A little off message, but that doesn't stop other people :-) What is the
> upper limit, legally and technically, of the number of programs that will
> fit into that 19-point-something MBps on an ATSC signal? I have seen five
> at once and they looked OK. I didn't give them a critical inspection for
> artifacts.
>
> I spent about a half hour googling <multicast ATSC>. Lots of info, but I
> didn't see that stat.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

If you talk to equipment manufacturers they will tell you that 8 SD
channels are possible using the latest and greatest MPEG2 equipment.
This is with statistical multicasting being used.

With MPEG4 they will tell you 10 SD programs now which will increase to
16 over the next few years as MPEG4 matures.

That is the technical reality there is no legal limit accept for the FCC
rule that a broadcaster must deliver one free channel in MPEG2. So that
lowers everything a bit.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 6:48:13 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
>>
>> A little off message, but that doesn't stop other people :-) What is the
>> upper limit, legally and technically, of the number of programs that will
>> fit into that 19-point-something MBps on an ATSC signal? I have seen
>> five
>> at once and they looked OK. I didn't give them a critical inspection for
>> artifacts.
Should be "statistical multiplexing".

>>
>> I spent about a half hour googling <multicast ATSC>. Lots of info, but I
>> didn't see that stat.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> If you talk to equipment manufacturers they will tell you that 8 SD
> channels are possible using the latest and greatest MPEG2 equipment.
> This is with statistical multicasting being used.
>
> With MPEG4 they will tell you 10 SD programs now which will increase to
> 16 over the next few years as MPEG4 matures.
>
> That is the technical reality there is no legal limit accept for the FCC
> rule that a broadcaster must deliver one free channel in MPEG2. So that
> lowers everything a bit.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:50:28 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> But, most encoders in
> use by stations today will not create a stream at less than about 1.5Mbps.
> I don't know why they have this lower limit,


There is a spec in the official MPEG spec that says you have to
emit a packet for each stream every so often. I seem to
remember 4 milliseconds. That is 400 kilobits per second or
so.
Doug MCDonald
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 12:27:25 PM

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

> Yes! and will very soon. OTA is just another delivery method and now
> finally it will work minimally because of LG's 5th gen receiver.
>

Right, so the Samsung HDTV receiver I have had for a long time now,
that lets me enjoy free HDTV OTA, isn't working according to your
world. Right.

Bob, please leave us alone. We're all enjoying HDTV just fine.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:13:23 PM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> Yes! and will very soon. OTA is just another delivery method and now
>> finally it will work minimally because of LG's 5th gen receiver.
>>
>
> Right, so the Samsung HDTV receiver I have had for a long time now, that
> lets me enjoy free HDTV OTA, isn't working according to your world. Right.
>
> Bob, please leave us alone. We're all enjoying HDTV just fine.

NO, not everyone Michael. You are another "I got mine so everyone else
can just get lost". Who are the "WE" you speak for and how do you
communicate? That is how were you chosen as spokesperson?

John Mason is NINE blocks from the Empire State Building and his
reception is pathetic.

John Mason wrote on AVSForum....

"Whatever they're doing, hope they'll throw in an extra tweak so those
near the ESB can enjoy reception, too. Maybe maximum power will do it.

Still can only tune CBS from a north-facing location only 9 blocks from
the antennas (using building reflections). Happily discovered I was
getting a fairly good reading, more stable than CBS, for WPIX. But while
the reading is good there are zero images, not even a flicker. With the
same hardware (Silver Sensor, Philips RPTV built-in tuner), I used to
get ABC/NBC from the World Trade Tower beamed into mid-town Manhattan.
Cable TV, fortunately, delivers most HD, but not channels 9 and 11. -- John"

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:13:24 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>>
>>> Yes! and will very soon. OTA is just another delivery method and now
>>> finally it will work minimally because of LG's 5th gen receiver.
>>>
>>
>> Right, so the Samsung HDTV receiver I have had for a long time now,
>> that lets me enjoy free HDTV OTA, isn't working according to your
>> world. Right.
>>
>> Bob, please leave us alone. We're all enjoying HDTV just fine.
>
>
> NO, not everyone Michael. You are another "I got mine so everyone else
> can just get lost". Who are the "WE" you speak for and how do you
> communicate? That is how were you chosen as spokesperson?
>

The "we" is everyone on this newsgroup who continually call into
question your bogus claims. So this *one* guy called John has issues
in downtown NY. Perhaps he's in a old steel cage of an apartment
building. Perhaps he has the hair-dryer running or the toaster on.
Thinking you're going to get a clear signal with it bouncing off all
the buildings is probably asking a lot. Who knows? The point is it's
ONE guy.

Meanwhile there is everyone else on this board talking about great
HDTV programming.

We all know your true motivations. And that is to introduce a
different scheme to support your mobile advertising business. But I
want higher quality HDTV (not just DTV) at home. I DON'T WANT yet
MORE advertising beamed to me everywhere I go. We have reached a
saturation point. It's people like you that disgust me. You just
want to make more money at the expense of people's sanity. You don't
care that we will then have lower quality HDTV or just DTV (no H).
You just want to sell more advertising.

So there ya go, Bob. That is why *I* so violently react to all your
posts.
!