Viewership numbers from the GAO

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:112jb9l2qufji61@corp.supernews.com...
> <http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/rfupdate/20...;
>
> Just to counter bob's lies and distortions:
>
> At a Feb. 17 hearing, Mark Goldstein, GAO Director, Physical
> Infrastructure, revealed to the subcommittee findings of a survey it had
> commissioned to determine how many viewers might require a set-top box and
> the cost of subsidizing those devices. Among the findings he reported
> were:
>
> * 19 percent, roughly 21 million U.S. households rely exclusively on
> free over-the-air television
> * 57 percent, nearly 64 million households view via cable
> * 19 percent, or about 22 million subscribe to a DBS service
> * 48 percent of OTA households have incomes under $30,000
> * 29 percent of cable and DBS households have incomes under $30,000
> * 6 percent of OTA households have incomes exceeding $100,000
> * 13 percent of cable and DBS households have incomes exceeding
> $100,000
>
> It doesn't take a genius, though bob still can't figure it out, one of the
> major reasons HDTV rollout has been slow is the cost of the display and
> receiver. Now that receivers will be integrated into most large sets and
> the prices of large sets has dropped out of the stratosphere, look for the
> uptake rate to increase.

I suppose...but it also validates his contention that a UK-like model of
digital SD multicast with low-cost receivers most likely would have been
much more popular than HD has proven to be. USDTV is sort of the right idea,
but not really. At $20/month, it's not really cheaper than basic analog
cable, but with fewer channels, and it's only available in a few areas.

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

Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:112jb9l2qufji61@corp.supernews.com...
>
>><http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/rfupdate/20...;
>>
>>Just to counter bob's lies and distortions:
>>
>>At a Feb. 17 hearing, Mark Goldstein, GAO Director, Physical
>>Infrastructure, revealed to the subcommittee findings of a survey it had
>>commissioned to determine how many viewers might require a set-top box and
>>the cost of subsidizing those devices. Among the findings he reported
>>were:
>>
>> * 19 percent, roughly 21 million U.S. households rely exclusively on
>>free over-the-air television
>> * 57 percent, nearly 64 million households view via cable
>> * 19 percent, or about 22 million subscribe to a DBS service
>> * 48 percent of OTA households have incomes under $30,000
>> * 29 percent of cable and DBS households have incomes under $30,000
>> * 6 percent of OTA households have incomes exceeding $100,000
>> * 13 percent of cable and DBS households have incomes exceeding
>>$100,000
>>
>>It doesn't take a genius, though bob still can't figure it out, one of the
>>major reasons HDTV rollout has been slow is the cost of the display and
>>receiver. Now that receivers will be integrated into most large sets and
>>the prices of large sets has dropped out of the stratosphere, look for the
>>uptake rate to increase.
>
>
> I suppose...but it also validates his contention that a UK-like model of
> digital SD multicast with low-cost receivers most likely would have been
> much more popular than HD has proven to be.

So what? Color took a very long time to get where HDTV is now. Almost
all scripted shows on all major networks are available in HDTV. It took
a lot longer for color broadcasts to get that level of dominance.

> USDTV is sort of the right idea,
> but not really. At $20/month, it's not really cheaper than basic analog
> cable, but with fewer channels, and it's only available in a few areas.

Few? Try three. They also appear to be morphing into a dial up ISP.

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