Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pay wireless TV a bad bet in USA!

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 3:53:25 PM

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

I don't think wireless pay TV schemes will work in the USA. Every
American city is already fully wired for cable TV and satellite service
will always be the most economical provider for rural areas, so why
even bother thinking about OTA pay TV? The one company that is doing
it isn't making any money, and why do we need a redundant provider for
services that already exist?

Europe in much more crowded than the USA and wireless pay TV schemes
have a better chance of catching on there. As the USA is already wired
and covered by other systems, I just do not see a big market for pay
OTA TV, no matter what transmission system it uses. If people are
going to pay $40. per month for TV they want 99.9% reliability of
transmission, and neither 8-VSB nor COFDM can deliver that, but cable
and satellite systems can.

IB
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 10:01:54 PM

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

Trust me, your RIGHT on this call, where I lived they tried this, guess what
it FAILED, big time to of all things CABLE, a SHOWTIME MSD? (single channel
microwave thing) FAILED for the same reason, The city, for what ever it's
worth, was St. Louis, MO. I really don't think it has any chance at all. BTW
here they have some sort of MSD multi channel microwave deal but you don't
see many installations, seems less all the time. But the small dish's are
every where. And we have a very poor cable system too, no HD on that.


Fear can hold you prisoner
Hope can set you free

<inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112640805.208206.135820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I don't think wireless pay TV schemes will work in the USA. Every
> American city is already fully wired for cable TV and satellite service
> will always be the most economical provider for rural areas, so why
> even bother thinking about OTA pay TV? The one company that is doing
> it isn't making any money, and why do we need a redundant provider for
> services that already exist?
>
> Europe in much more crowded than the USA and wireless pay TV schemes
> have a better chance of catching on there. As the USA is already wired
> and covered by other systems, I just do not see a big market for pay
> OTA TV, no matter what transmission system it uses. If people are
> going to pay $40. per month for TV they want 99.9% reliability of
> transmission, and neither 8-VSB nor COFDM can deliver that, but cable
> and satellite systems can.
>
> IB
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 11:14:58 PM

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

<inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112640805.208206.135820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I don't think wireless pay TV schemes will work in the USA. Every
> American city is already fully wired for cable TV and satellite service
> will always be the most economical provider for rural areas, so why
> even bother thinking about OTA pay TV? The one company that is doing
> it isn't making any money, and why do we need a redundant provider for
> services that already exist?
>
> Europe in much more crowded than the USA and wireless pay TV schemes
> have a better chance of catching on there. As the USA is already wired
> and covered by other systems, I just do not see a big market for pay
> OTA TV, no matter what transmission system it uses. If people are
> going to pay $40. per month for TV they want 99.9% reliability of
> transmission, and neither 8-VSB nor COFDM can deliver that, but cable
> and satellite systems can.
>
> IB
>
But if someone wants to throw their money at it, so what?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 7:37:26 AM

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

Mike Parisey wrote:
> Trust me, your RIGHT on this call, where I lived they tried this, guess what it FAILED, big time to of all things CABLE, a SHOWTIME MSD? (single channel
> microwave thing) FAILED for the same reason, The city, for what ever it's worth, was St. Louis, MO. I really don't think it has any chance at all. BTW
> here they have some sort of MSD multi channel microwave deal but you don't see many installations, seems less all the time. But the small dish's are
> every where. And we have a very poor cable system too, no HD on that.
>
>
> Fear can hold you prisoner
> Hope can set you free
>
> <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112640805.208206.135820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I don't think wireless pay TV schemes will work in the USA. Every American city is already fully wired for cable TV and satellite service
>>will always be the most economical provider for rural areas, so why even bother thinking about OTA pay TV? The one company that is doing
>>it isn't making any money, and why do we need a redundant provider for services that already exist?
>>
>>Europe in much more crowded than the USA and wireless pay TV schemes have a better chance of catching on there. As the USA is already wired
>>and covered by other systems, I just do not see a big market for pay OTA TV, no matter what transmission system it uses. If people are
>>going to pay $40. per month for TV they want 99.9% reliability of transmission, and neither 8-VSB nor COFDM can deliver that, but cable
>>and satellite systems can.
>>
>>IB
>>
>
Places like Berlin are 95% cable and satellite. That is higher than the
US and they are getting and will continue to get killed by terrestrial
free OTA. Pay OTA is going to be right behind. In the UK the SKY
satellite service of Murdock is going to be surpassed by FreeView this
year and I predict will halt SKY's sales, reduce them to zero or even a
negative, by the end of this year. When FreeView passed the SKY
subscriber numbers later this year it will have been in existence less
than three years.

In three more years most of cable and satellite in Europe will be in big
trouble IMO because of the success of OTA. The one bright spot in
satellite may be HD via satellite.

This would be true in the US also. You are wrong that cable and
satellite provide better reception than OTA. Satellite suffers from rain
fade so bad that my wife had me switch to an RCN microwave system. We
had switched to satellite, Dish, from Time Warner Cable because of
reception problems.

Now we find that the microwave link is the worst of the three and its
back to cable. What did we use during the rain storms we have had
recently? A combination of OTA DTV and OTA analog. What won out? Analog.
Best reception with no loss due to rain fade, multipath a bit once in a
while a double image. What did my wife watch? Analog though I had
digital set up right beside it. Every drop out she told me to please
turn the thing off. She won't even look at it. The audio was from the
analog since the digital was delayed and there were those pesky drop outs.

No OTA is best by far. Blows away cable and satellite. And obviously
digital is far better if we have a good receiver or a decent modulation.

The PQ is far better OTA digital or analog than either cable or
satellite IMO.

Bob Miller

>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 7:37:27 AM

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

Snip
>
> No OTA is best by far. Blows away cable and satellite. And obviously
> digital is far better if we have a good receiver or a decent modulation.
>
> The PQ is far better OTA digital or analog than either cable or satellite
> IMO.
>
> Bob Miller
>

Who said anything about PQ, the pay for OTA business model FAILED! Seems
that was in the 80's. In the USA I'm sure it will also fail / is failing
today, the business model, not the PQ.

Boobster please get yourself a real job and some kind of life.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 6, 2005 3:58:13 PM

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

Don't be fooled into responding, inkyblacks@yahoo.com is most likely
Bob Miller's other account. No I can't prove it, but just at the
circumstantial evidence, do a search on inkyblacks@yahoo.com and see
how it's always point - counter point, with these two, with Bob Miller
always seeming to win the argument (i.e. all these threads in with a
Bob Miller post not a inkyblacks post). Also look at the writing style
between the two.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 6, 2005 4:44:10 PM

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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Don't be fooled into responding, inkyblacks@yahoo.com is most likely
> Bob Miller's other account. No I can't prove it, but just at the
> circumstantial evidence, do a search on inkyblacks@yahoo.com and see
> how it's always point - counter point, with these two, with Bob Miller
> always seeming to win the argument (i.e. all these threads in with a
> Bob Miller post not a inkyblacks post). Also look at the writing style
> between the two.

Well, duh! :-)

Psycho Bob is an admitted user of sock puppets and strawmen. He even used
his daughter's account to post on AVSFORUM after he was banned. Is that
creepy or what?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 6, 2005 7:13:23 PM

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

As a detective and as a judge of character, you are a failure. Keep
your day job!

IB


Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Don't be fooled into responding, inkyblacks@yahoo.com is most likely
> Bob Miller's other account. No I can't prove it, but just at the
> circumstantial evidence, do a search on inkyblacks@yahoo.com and see
> how it's always point - counter point, with these two, with Bob
Miller
> always seeming to win the argument (i.e. all these threads in with a
> Bob Miller post not a inkyblacks post). Also look at the writing
style
> between the two.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 6, 2005 8:37:32 PM

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

So are you saying you're not Bob Miller? Keep in mind if I can prove
otherwise (or produce reasonable evidence) it will show your true lack
of integrity and character. Not that there's much there anyway...
again, assuming you are Bob Miller (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Come clean and save the embarsement.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 2:09:06 AM

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

I disagree with Bob about the advantages of mobile TV and the need to
increase advertising, which I dislike. But I have a tiny little hunch
Bob is correct in thinking that he is not me (IB), as I live on the
West Coast and Bob lives on the East Coast. I would suspect Bob has an
engineering degree, while I am just a consumer interested in gadgets
and gizmos. Just because I do not hate Bob because he disagrees with
me on TV transmission policy does not mean I am him. It just means I
am a grown-up with a sense of humor and proportion. Also I want him to
keep reviewing 5th generation receivers so I know which one to buy!

That said, I am having lunch with Elvis Presley tomorrow and we are
going to discuss his theory that the Beetles actually shot JFK, not Lee
Harvey Oswald. Life is full of conspiracies and everyone IS out to get
you!

laughs, IB
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 3:49:24 AM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> So are you saying you're not Bob Miller? Keep in mind if I can prove
> otherwise (or produce reasonable evidence) it will show your true lack
> of integrity and character. Not that there's much there anyway...
> again, assuming you are Bob Miller (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
>
> Come clean and save the embarsement.
>
How about your "embarsement" when someone points out your spelling?

Prove away.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 3:49:25 AM

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

Boobster, dude, get over it get a real job and life, if you can get over
your FAILED business model. And we all know what you have done in the past,
and that you lie like a pro! YOU are WRONG again and again...... ;-0


Fear can hold you prisoner
Hope can set you free

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8A_4e.1929$An2.1290@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>> So are you saying you're not Bob Miller? Keep in mind if I can prove
>> otherwise (or produce reasonable evidence) it will show your true lack
>> of integrity and character. Not that there's much there anyway...
>> again, assuming you are Bob Miller (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
>>
>> Come clean and save the embarsement.
>>
> How about your "embarsement" when someone points out your spelling?
>
> Prove away.
>
> Bob Miller
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 9:29:09 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> I disagree with Bob about the advantages of mobile TV and the need to increase advertising, which I dislike. But I have a tiny little hunch
> Bob is correct in thinking that he is not me (IB), as I live on the West Coast and Bob lives on the East Coast. I would suspect Bob has an
> engineering degree, while I am just a consumer interested in gadgets and gizmos. Just because I do not hate Bob because he disagrees with
> me on TV transmission policy does not mean I am him. It just means I am a grown-up with a sense of humor and proportion. Also I want him to
> keep reviewing 5th generation receivers so I know which one to buy!
>
> That said, I am having lunch with Elvis Presley tomorrow and we are going to discuss his theory that the Beetles actually shot JFK, not Lee
> Harvey Oswald. Life is full of conspiracies and everyone IS out to get you!
>
> laughs, IB
>

Where do you get the idea that I want to increase advertising? And if I
did how would I? Advertising is so pervasive and I am not in that game
so I wouldn't presume to know anything about increasing advertising
since the advertising industry has done a very good job in my opinion of
maximizing advertising.

And as to the advantages of mobile TV. It is more of a disadvantage for
broadcasters not to have it than any advantage I am talking about. In an
age where multiple new broadcasters including XM, Sirius, Qualcomm and
Crown Castle and there are a few others will be addressing the myriad of
devices each of us will have that will be capable of receiving DTV
programming, to cripple your own spectrum with a modulation that cannot
be received by those devices is death.

In that same age where broadcasters are crippled mobile, an advantage
they would have over cable, satellite and Internet, and where there is a
modulation that would allow it, it seems really stupid to saddle
yourself with 8-VSB as a price for must carry of multicasting.

And anyone who sees this trade off by broadcasters, being allowed
multicast must carry in return for accepting a death sentence for their
OTA spectrum, is crazy.

Broadcasters have sold their future only to be tenants on cable, a
position that is only as good as their political connections and power.
And I would not bet on that if I were them for long.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 2:07:43 PM

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

Bob you are respondeding to a response I made to "inkyblacks". Also, I
noticed how Inkyblacks has not answered my question and will not state
"I am not Bob Miller". I would think he would by defending his identity
as vigiously as you are. But why should you waste the energy twice.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 4:26:54 PM

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

Bob,

I have read many posts which accuse you of being involved in some
advertising scheme using mobile TV and I assumed there was something to
it. If not, then good!

I do not see any valid use for mobile TV and I do not think the very
idea is healthy for society. If people go camping they should enjoy
nature, not watch football games in a tent. Passengers in a car should
enjoy the scenery, not have their eyes glued to a flat panel display.
Just because you can do something technically does not automatically
mean it should be done. It is possible to build a atomic powered ocean
liner, but I do not think it is a good idea.

As previously stated, I think 8-VSB is fixable and I do not see any
possibility of a change this late in the game. I think we have to make
the best with what we have. I do not have a crystal ball and I am not
in charge of the future. If the cost of HDTV receivers drops to $20. a
box, then our society could probably afford frequent change. Free OTA
TV is different than cable or satellite and people do not want to
change set-top boxes and TV sets every few years just to satisfy the
grand schemes of a few entrepreneurs like yourself. People want
stability and predictability for free OTA TV, especially at the current
cost of receivers.

IB
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 6:40:16 PM

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

Bob,

What I think really makes no difference to anyone. If you are right
then things will go your way over time. Good luck to you, but I think
you need to find a way to express your opinions to people who have the
power to make a change. You are not making many converts on the
newsgroups, and even if you did, I don't think that would change the
mind of Congress or convince broadcasters they should spend hundreds of
millions to alter their broadcast equipment.

IB
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 9:24:58 PM

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

"inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote (in part):

>I am having lunch with Elvis Presley tomorrow and we are
>going to discuss his theory that the Beetles actually shot JFK, not Lee
>Harvey Oswald.

Now we know you're not Bob; he wouldn't have misspelled the Beatles.
But are you saying they did *not* shoot Lee Harvey Oswald? Sure, Jack
Ruby pulled the trigger, but no conspiracy theorist believes he acted
alone.

However, I bow to Elvis' insights on the matter, considering that he
has spent his later years in a nursing home along with JFK, who was
cleverly disguised to look like Ossie Davis.

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 8, 2005 12:08:41 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I have read many posts which accuse you of being involved in some
> advertising scheme using mobile TV and I assumed there was something to
> it. If not, then good!
>
> I do not see any valid use for mobile TV and I do not think the very
> idea is healthy for society. If people go camping they should enjoy
> nature, not watch football games in a tent. Passengers in a car should
> enjoy the scenery, not have their eyes glued to a flat panel display.
> Just because you can do something technically does not automatically
> mean it should be done. It is possible to build a atomic powered ocean
> liner, but I do not think it is a good idea.
>
> As previously stated, I think 8-VSB is fixable and I do not see any
> possibility of a change this late in the game. I think we have to make
> the best with what we have. I do not have a crystal ball and I am not
> in charge of the future. If the cost of HDTV receivers drops to $20. a
> box, then our society could probably afford frequent change. Free OTA
> TV is different than cable or satellite and people do not want to
> change set-top boxes and TV sets every few years just to satisfy the
> grand schemes of a few entrepreneurs like yourself. People want
> stability and predictability for free OTA TV, especially at the current
> cost of receivers.
>
> IB
>
Current cost of 8-VSB receivers you mean.

Consider this. The US changes to a COFDM based modulation and MPEG4 AVC.
All broadcasters do a hierarchical broadcast of their main program, say
an HD program, and a copy in SD with very robust settings. OZ is doing a
multicast of SD and HD with MPEG2 and has been criticized for wasting
bandwidth.

But doing this with MPEG4 you would actually save bandwidth. The MPEG4
HD and SD programs combined would take less of the bandwidth than the HD
stream alone with MPEG2.

And you would still have a lot more headroom so that the pixelation seen
in fast moving sports would be vastly diminished or disappear.

In doing that we would immediately have access to at least 120 companies
including such as LG who could make SD receivers (converter boxes) for
analog TV sets that cost almost as little as your $20. In the UK you
could buy an SD COFDM receiver before Christmas on sale for $35. I
believe that in the quantities we are talking about in Congress, 10
million converter boxes, that the price would be under $30. That $35
unit in the UK after all had marketing, sales and distribution cost that
would not exist in such a buy.

As soon as we did this the lowest priced receiver for SD COFDM in the US
on retailer shelves would be the same or lower than the $35 to $75 in
the UK.

France just started SD COFDM broadcast last week and $70 receivers are
already for sale.

And HD COFDM receivers would be as low as $75 to $100 day one in the US
if we switched or allowed COFDM.

Congress would save more in just their proposed first buy of COFDM over
8-VSB receivers to make everyone whole who now has 8-VSB. And the
savings in antenna cost for everyone is not even factored into this. Nor
is the added value of the spectrum if we had a codec that was from 3 to
4 times more efficient.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 8, 2005 12:17:25 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I have read many posts which accuse you of being involved in some advertising scheme using mobile TV and I assumed there was something to
> it. If not, then good!
>
> I do not see any valid use for mobile TV and I do not think the very idea is healthy for society. If people go camping they should enjoy
> nature, not watch football games in a tent. Passengers in a car should enjoy the scenery, not have their eyes glued to a flat panel display.
> Just because you can do something technically does not automatically mean it should be done. It is possible to build a atomic powered ocean
> liner, but I do not think it is a good idea.
>
Your moral take on mobile TV is not the issue. We will have lots of
mobile TV there is no question of that. Qualcomm, Crown Castle, Sirius
and XM and others will take care of that. The question is can OTA free
TV survive squashed between their fearsome competitors in the broadcast
to fixed receivers and the host of new broadcasters whose signal will be
receivable both mobile and fixed.

The are already losing to cable and satellite. They have lost at least
85% of their viewers who rely on OTA. Most of that 15% who can be lost
will be when analog cutoff occurs. They subsist now on must carry. They
are already dead IMO as OTA broadcasters. The only question in my mind
is how long Congress puts up with this charade before they find a legal
fig leaf of an idea that will let them give broadcasters must carry
while they sell off the rest of their spectrum to those who will use it
with a decent modulation.

> As previously stated, I think 8-VSB is fixable and I do not see any possibility of a change this late in the game. I think we have to make
> the best with what we have. I do not have a crystal ball and I am not in charge of the future. If the cost of HDTV receivers drops to $20. a
> box, then our society could probably afford frequent change. Free OTA TV is different than cable or satellite and people do not want to
> change set-top boxes and TV sets every few years just to satisfy the grand schemes of a few entrepreneurs like yourself. People want
> stability and predictability for free OTA TV, especially at the current cost of receivers.
>
I know that 8-VSB is fixable enough to just kill off OTA. Yes in that
sense it is fixable. 5th gen receivers will keep the charade going for
say 6 to 10 years.

Bob Miller
> IB
>
April 8, 2005 1:12:10 AM

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

In article <1112813893.949761.144810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

> Don't be fooled into responding, inkyblacks@yahoo.com is most likely
> Bob Miller's other account. No I can't prove it, but just at the
> circumstantial evidence, do a search on inkyblacks@yahoo.com and see
> how it's always point - counter point, with these two, with Bob Miller
> always seeming to win the argument (i.e. all these threads in with a
> Bob Miller post not a inkyblacks post). Also look at the writing style
> between the two.

There's an Inky Blacks on AVS. Only read his posts in a thread about
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD. Very anti-Sony and really in Lala land.

For instance, he suggests that Sony abandon Blu-Ray because of costs and
work on developing something using a UV laser, which costs more than
blue laser at this point.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 8, 2005 2:53:55 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What I think really makes no difference to anyone. If you are right
> then things will go your way over time. Good luck to you, but I think
> you need to find a way to express your opinions to people who have the
> power to make a change. You are not making many converts on the
> newsgroups, and even if you did, I don't think that would change the
> mind of Congress or convince broadcasters they should spend hundreds of
> millions to alter their broadcast equipment.
>
> IB
>
Convince broadcasters? Of What? They are mostly crying lonely tears that
they do not have COFDM. CBS being the one Luddite exception possibly.

What "hundreds of millions to alter their broadcast equipment"?

The bill for changing to COFDM would be the cost of a new modulator,
$50,000, and possibly

A. if you believe the BS that COFDM needs more power for the same
coverage, and if the particular broadcaster is..

B. Staying on the same channel digital they are on now, not moving from
a high UHF to a low UHF or VHF, and

C. if they cannot modify their current transmitter to a higher power,
they may need a new transmitter.

Most of the above are highly unlikely. If I were a broadcaster and went
COFDM in the above condition I would take the theoretical hit in
coverage and not buy a new transmitter anyway. The reality is that such
a broadcaster would not suffer loss of coverage but gain it with COFDM.

Even if the cost was higher than the $50,000 modulator broadcasters
would switch to COFDM in a heartbeat and breathe a sigh of relief.

I am expressing my arguments to those who can make a change.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 8, 2005 4:42:37 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:p zg5e.2488$yq6.2289@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> I know that 8-VSB is fixable enough to just kill off OTA. Yes in
> that sense it is fixable. 5th gen receivers will keep the charade
> going for say 6 to 10 years.
>
Maybe you're being a bit too pessimistic. After all, they kept
the NTSC charade going for a lot more years than that.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 8, 2005 9:05:54 PM

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

L David Matheny wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:p zg5e.2488$yq6.2289@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <snip>
>
>>I know that 8-VSB is fixable enough to just kill off OTA. Yes in
>>that sense it is fixable. 5th gen receivers will keep the charade
>>going for say 6 to 10 years.
>>
>
> Maybe you're being a bit too pessimistic. After all, they kept
> the NTSC charade going for a lot more years than that.
>
>
Good point.

Bob Miller
!