Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tunerless HDTV sets

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 6:56:13 PM

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

Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.

The mandate is dead IMO.

Bob Miller

Tuning stripped out of rear projection CRT TVs
By Dennis P. Barker


At the recent Toshiba product line show, which was held in the outskirts
of Albuquerque, NM at the luxurious Hyatt Tamaya resort on May 19th, the
company unveiled their first rear projection CRT monitors capable of
displaying high-definition TV signals. The set sets in the new Custom
SeriesHD Series include no tuning whatsoever, and will reply on the
consumer of adding a separate HD Satellite and HD Cable Box.

To this reporter, it was seemingly a bold move. However, it was later
found out that by eliminating all tuning, the sets bypassed the FCC
tuner mandate for all TVs 36-in. and above, which goes into effect on
July 1st. And, as a bonus, the company will be able to offer the sets at
much lower prices. The 57-in. widescreen model " 57HC85 " is priced at
$1,599.99 (list), which means that it will sell for about $1,300-$1,400
(street). Toshiba will also offer a 51-in. model (51HC85 @ $1,399.99 list).

Both models will include PowerFocus HD CRTs, and the PowerFocusHD lens
system along with their TheaterShield acrylic panel. Integrated features
include: CrystalScan HDSC video processing, dynamic quadruple focus,
DFine hi-speed velocity scan modulation, CableClear digital noise
reduction, and split screen POP (with external tuners). The sets will
include SRS WOW sound along with HDMI digital video input and an
illuminated universal remote.

Surprisingly, at presstime, in a conversation with an official from RCA,
it was mentioned that RCA will also be offering tuner less rear
projection CRT monitors. Presumably, it was learned that since these
type of sets have been offered to the public for so long, they are a lot
less expensive to produce, and offer the consumer good value. It was
pointed out that CRT still maintains excellent image quality over all of
the flat-panel TVs and micro-displays. So, the notion of a tuner less
rear projection CRT is not the brainstorm of one single company, but
could be start of a trend among all producers of rear projection CRTs
for the U.S. market.

More about : tunerless hdtv sets

Anonymous
June 16, 2005 6:56:14 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> [same ol' garbage]


There are more HDTV sets without tuners than with. This is nothing
new. Please move along...
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 6:56:14 PM

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

I think he means No tuners at all that includes your standard channel
1-135!! (OTA or Cable channels)
Strictly a monitor!!


--
rcbridge, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
Related resources
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 6:56:14 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hqgse.5307$NX4.2384@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the FCC
> tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing just
> that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and touting
> the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their display
> device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless displays. I
> sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable or satellite
> customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate tuner also with
> better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.

I think purchasing a television WITH a tuner makes the most sense, all
things being somewhat equal. You don't have to use the tuner in today's
applications, but as we all know, eventually that television will end up in
a bedroom, kids room or at your parents and it's awfully nice to know that
you can just plug it in with a small antenna and get "something." When that
set gets relegated to secondary room status in a few years, digital
broadcasting should be well established even in minor markets so I think it
really makes sense to get it. And Bob...I don't think the OTA standards are
gonna change so don't go there! :) 
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 6:56:15 PM

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

> There are more HDTV sets without tuners than with. This is nothing
> new. Please move along...

That there are no tuners whatsoever in these is the point.....no NTSC nor
HD. It is new.
June 16, 2005 8:42:21 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
>FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
>just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
>touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
>display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
>displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
>or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
>tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.


I think you miss the point that instead of buying all those tuners
yourself, the manufactures should provide you with suitable tuners
built in.

The issue is they can't. GET IT ?

HDTV technology is still beta test bullshit.

I think from you're previous posts, you're familiar with the concept.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 9:08:20 PM

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

"** +9" <-> wrote in message
news:bc34b1p6vsg7ne7sltab74g17d90d80vqs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
>>FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
>>just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
>>touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
>>display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
>>displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
>>or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
>>tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.
>
>
> I think you miss the point that instead of buying all those tuners
> yourself, the manufactures should provide you with suitable tuners
> built in.
>
> The issue is they can't. GET IT ?

Well my next door neighbor just purchased a Hitachi Ultravision with a built
in OTA HD/SD tuner and it works great. Picks up all the stations in the
market quite easily and a tab quicker than my 3rd generation STB's did.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 12:39:17 AM

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

If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
hdtv without a turner? DUH.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:21:02 AM

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

> Fair number of people buy an HD monitor without an ATSC tuner.
That's because most HDTV (well, you called it HD monitor) are sold
without a tuner.

> if itdoesn't have a tuner, then it is called a monitor rather than a TV
Sorry, when it says it is HDTV it is sold as a TV rather than a moniter
and I would expect a tuner along with it. I think most people are
intelligent enough to differentiate between a TV and a monitor.

> I have a Panasonic commercial plasma monitor with a cable HD set up, but I also
> have the Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC tuner for OTA stuff. Works fine for me.
So, if it works fine for you and does that mean it should be for
everyone? So, everyone should just buy a "monitor" and a hdtv tuner
just to get ota programming?

And what's the point of getting a cheaper "monitor" but ended up
footing out more money for cable, satellite or a separate ota hdtv
receiver just to watch tv?
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:30:19 AM

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

I agree. Getting awesome pictures with a rooftop antenna. I resisted
buying an HDTV until there was one in my price range that included an
ATSC tuner. Glad I waited and didn't bother with the "buy a monitor,
add a tuner later" bullshit. I screwed on the coax, hit channel scan,
and a minute later was watching true HDTV.

-beaumon
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:57:47 AM

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

kelvinyany@gmail.com wrote:
> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
> hdtv without a turner? DUH.

Fair number of people buy an HD monitor without an ATSC tuner. If it
doesn't have a tuner, then it is called a monitor rather than a TV. If
you get your SD & HD through the cable set top box, then you really
don't need the tuner except for the HD OTA stations that your local
cable system is not carrying (yet). I have a Panasonic commercial plasma
monitor with a cable HD set up, but I also have the Samsung SIR-T451
ATSC tuner for OTA stuff. Works fine for me.

If you have HD satellite setup, then the sat STB should have a ATSC
tuner built-in.

This is not a surprising move for CRT RPTVs. The prices on the CRT
RPTVs have been dropping as they have been losing market share rapidly
to the DLP, LCOS, LCD RPTVs. So it may make sense to drop the tuners to
save a few bucks to keep the CRT RPTV product line around a little
longer. We will see some other companies drop tuners altogether from
their lowest cost models, but I would expect to see ATSC tuners in most
of the bigger screen TVs to help sell them. The FCC mandate on ASTC
tuners for > 36" sets will still kick in July 1 and we will likely have
the 2006 date for smaller sets moved up 4 months.

Alan F
June 17, 2005 12:55:32 PM

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

"** +9" <-> wrote in message
news:bc34b1p6vsg7ne7sltab74g17d90d80vqs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
>>FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
>>just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
>>touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
>>display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
>>displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
>>or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
>>tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.
>
>
> I think you miss the point that instead of buying all those tuners
> yourself, the manufactures should provide you with suitable tuners
> built in.
>
> The issue is they can't. GET IT ?
>
> HDTV technology is still beta test bullshit.
>
> I think from you're previous posts, you're familiar with the concept.



My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD recordings.

I bought my first PC recorder in 1999 [AccessDTV]. It worked perfectly since
day one.
[Had to change it out to work with Win XP]

Using a Myhd card now. It's been a very reliable system.

I also record OTA shows on my HD Directivo. They also come in flawlessly.

OTA high-definition in the USA is the bees knees.
Sure beats the unreliable COFDM garbage they use in other countries.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:50:21 PM

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

It does not appear to me that TV set tuners are that expensive. Isn't most
of the expense of a large screen HDTV in the screen and the engine that
delivers the light to it? If tuners were expensive add-ons, then you could
sell tunerless monitors at much lower prices to people who intended to
ALWAYS access their TV via a set-top CTV box.

But SD tuners must be dirt-cheap, considering that they are in everthing now
and HD tuners are not very much with the price no doubt heading down as
Chinese peasants throw them together for 25 cents an hour.

Best to pay a little more up front for tuners and be able to get your TV
OTA, especially since OTA digital HDTV is, unlike analog SD, actually BETTER
than what you get via a cable box.

TV set speakers, on the other hand. Now, THERE's something that could be
optional! AUDIO OUT could be enough. You can always add a speaker -- a
cheap one, if you like.

mack
austin


<kelvinyany@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118979557.341518.28670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
> hdtv without a turner? DUH.
>
June 17, 2005 5:50:22 PM

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:50:21 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>It does not appear to me that TV set tuners are that expensive. Isn't most
>of the expense of a large screen HDTV in the screen and the engine that
>delivers the light to it? If tuners were expensive add-ons, then you could
>sell tunerless monitors at much lower prices to people who intended to
>ALWAYS access their TV via a set-top CTV box.
>
>But SD tuners must be dirt-cheap, considering that they are in everthing now
>and HD tuners are not very much with the price no doubt heading down as
>Chinese peasants throw them together for 25 cents an hour.
>
>Best to pay a little more up front for tuners and be able to get your TV
>OTA, especially since OTA digital HDTV is, unlike analog SD, actually BETTER
>than what you get via a cable box.
>

The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
Sattelite. They don't need or want an Antenna and tuner.
Thumper
>TV set speakers, on the other hand. Now, THERE's something that could be
>optional! AUDIO OUT could be enough. You can always add a speaker -- a
>cheap one, if you like.
>
>mack
>austin
>
>
><kelvinyany@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1118979557.341518.28670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
>> hdtv without a turner? DUH.
>>
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:01:04 PM

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

jaylsmith@comcast.net (Thumper) wrote in
news:uns5b1hj1rc19fk74dq90fmav2duv69bsc@4ax.com:

> The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
> Sattelite.

What's "vast percentage" mean?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:25:01 PM

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

Bert Hyman wrote:
> jaylsmith@comcast.net (Thumper) wrote in
> news:uns5b1hj1rc19fk74dq90fmav2duv69bsc@4ax.com:
>
>
>>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>>Sattelite.
>
>
> What's "vast percentage" mean?
>
Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV, the 3%
who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely" on OTA.

Then of course you have the second and third sets many of which are
hooked up to OTA but how many. Some are also hooked up to cable, some
are used with games and DVD players and a large percentage are not even
on or are used very little.

"vast percentage" is pretty high. Most people do not need any kind of
tuner in their display device. And retailers will go to a lot of trouble
to sell them a monitor to shave whatever the cost of those unnecessary
tuners is off the sale price. Economics 101.

Those retailers who do not learn the lesson quickly will lose sales.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:25:02 PM

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

> What is the antenna for if not for receiving TV over the air signals??
>
Pheonix is on the flight path to Roswell. It is a well known fact that
Aliens live in the area and use roof top antennae for communication with
spaceships that are coming in land. That is why so many earthlings in the
area wrap their heads in foil to protect themselves from Blortok ray-guns.

Blorg
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:25:02 PM

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

Bert Hyman wrote:
> nothere@notnow.never (Matthew L. Martin) wrote in
> news:11b688b28j4tnb8@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>Nope; his numbers are correct.
>>
>>Actually, they are not. The numbers that were research for the FCC
>>indicate than nearly 40% of all TVs nationwide are OTA only. You
>>could also research the cable companies public financial reports.
>>They typically talk of 60-75% penetration with some amount of
>>churn.
>
>
> The figures I saw (Google is your friend) showed about 75% with cable
> and 20% with satellite, with both growing year to year.
>
> Of course there are lots of households (like mine) with both. Maybe
> 87% isn't exactly right, but it's probably close enough that the
> original "vast percentage" claim (allowing for awkward English) is
> applicable.

The figures you are referencing are "household" figures. The figures the
FCC uses are individual sets. Many households (including mine) have at
least one OTA only set.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
June 17, 2005 10:17:59 PM

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

>My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD recordings.

What are these hard drives in?

HDTV tuner boxes?

Or a PC used as a TIVO?
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 10:46:19 PM

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:59:01 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net>
wrote:


>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>Sattelite. They don't need or want an Antenna and tuner.
>Thumper

That's either because they don't want the best quality HDTV or they're
uneducated. And nobody but nobody is educating the public about
DTV/HDTV. Sorry state of affairs when you go into the largest stores
and not one of them can or will offer an OTA picture when there are a
half dozen stations available to them.
June 18, 2005 1:51:27 AM

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

On 17 Jun 2005 16:01:04 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>jaylsmith@comcast.net (Thumper) wrote in
>news:uns5b1hj1rc19fk74dq90fmav2duv69bsc@4ax.com:
>
>> The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>> Sattelite.
>
>What's "vast percentage" mean?


EWhy don't you look it up Bert.
Thumper
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:12:14 AM

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:25:01 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Bert Hyman wrote:
>> jaylsmith@comcast.net (Thumper) wrote in
>> news:uns5b1hj1rc19fk74dq90fmav2duv69bsc@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>>>Sattelite.
>>
>>
>> What's "vast percentage" mean?
>>
>Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
>satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV, the 3%
>who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely" on OTA.
>
>Then of course you have the second and third sets many of which are
>hooked up to OTA but how many. Some are also hooked up to cable, some
>are used with games and DVD players and a large percentage are not even
>on or are used very little.
>
>"vast percentage" is pretty high. Most people do not need any kind of
>tuner in their display device. And retailers will go to a lot of trouble
>to sell them a monitor to shave whatever the cost of those unnecessary
>tuners is off the sale price. Economics 101.
>
....

Most people use TV receivers with tuners. Whether or not they
are "needed" depends on the source of the television signal.

Many cable customers tune cable channels with a TV set tuner.
Not all cable companies require the use of a set top box
for basic cable service. At one time, "cable ready" meant
a TV set could tune 100 or more channels.

This household has 3 television receivers and two satellite
receivers. All three TV sets tune to channel 3 for the satellite
receiver output signals. One of the 3 sets has separate VHF/UHF
tuners with no other input source.

I'd say a significant number of Americans receive TV from cable
or satellite.

Remember when TV programming was called a vast wasteland?
That statement also generated controversy.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:12:15 AM

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:12:14 GMT, Jack Ak <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

>Remember when TV programming was called a vast wasteland?
>That statement also generated controversy.

Sure I do. It's more vast now.

Kal
June 18, 2005 4:36:51 AM

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

>the company unveiled their first rear projection CRT monitors capable of displaying high-definition TV signals.

Boy that's sure going to be a surprise to Toshiba...which has been
making high def rear projection monitors (meaning no tuner) since about
1997/98.
Either one piss poor reporter or a fig newton of Bob's imagination.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:16:47 AM

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:46:19 -0500, Phil Witt <w4imm@charter.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:59:01 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>>Sattelite. They don't need or want an Antenna and tuner.
>>Thumper
>
>That's either because they don't want the best quality HDTV or they're
>uneducated. And nobody but nobody is educating the public about
>DTV/HDTV. Sorry state of affairs when you go into the largest stores
>and not one of them can or will offer an OTA picture when there are a
>half dozen stations available to them.

"... they're uneducated"??? Can't we say "they" haven't been
swept up by HDTV mania? The uninformed believe that
digital television is High Definition TV.

How does "best quality HDTV" differ from ordinary HDTV?

One can be uninformed, but that doesn't imply uneducated.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:16:48 AM

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

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:16:47 GMT, Jack Ak <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:46:19 -0500, Phil Witt <w4imm@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:59:01 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>>>Sattelite. They don't need or want an Antenna and tuner.
>>>Thumper
>>
>>That's either because they don't want the best quality HDTV or they're
>>uneducated. And nobody but nobody is educating the public about
>>DTV/HDTV. Sorry state of affairs when you go into the largest stores
>>and not one of them can or will offer an OTA picture when there are a
>>half dozen stations available to them.
>
>"... they're uneducated"??? Can't we say "they" haven't been
>swept up by HDTV mania? The uninformed believe that
>digital television is High Definition TV.
>
>How does "best quality HDTV" differ from ordinary HDTV?
>
>One can be uninformed, but that doesn't imply uneducated.

I've never heard of "ordinary" HDTV. Cable, Sat, and DVD streams are
more compressed than OTA broadcast HDTV (unless, of course, the
broadcaster is doing excessive multicasting).

"Uneducated" in the area of product availability, specifications, and
capability. Uninformed will suffice. It is up to the industries
involved to educate the consumer, so that he can make an informed
choice and so that the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can
sell sets. This is clearly not happening and I don't understand why.
June 18, 2005 11:35:41 AM

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

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fgm6b1ls7bf12ep3g8clkeui46gpjlvnd2@4ax.com...
> >My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD
> >recordings.
>
> What are these hard drives in?
>
> HDTV tuner boxes?
>
> Or a PC used as a TIVO?

A PC used as a Tivo. Two harddrives are in the PC and three USB drives
external.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:25:42 PM

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

Many people
> remember antennas and want nothing to do with them and their
> maintenance.
> Your signal can only get so good. I used to have an OTA receiver
> until my cable company got everything on cable in HD that I could get
> OTA . Now they have 3 times as much not to mention all the other
> channels.

I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden to
provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless he
cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
few do. Some of the TV stations in my area like to preempt network
programming, and the only way to get a network broadcast when this is
happening is to use an OTA antenna aimed at an out-of-area TV station.
Therefore, getting your favorite program with a less than perfect picture is
better than not getting it at all.
June 18, 2005 3:50:51 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:25:42 -0400, "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com>
wrote:

>Many people
>> remember antennas and want nothing to do with them and their
>> maintenance.
>> Your signal can only get so good. I used to have an OTA receiver
>> until my cable company got everything on cable in HD that I could get
>> OTA . Now they have 3 times as much not to mention all the other
>> channels.
>
>I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden to
>provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless he
>cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
>provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
>few do. Some of the TV stations in my area like to preempt network
>programming, and the only way to get a network broadcast when this is
>happening is to use an OTA antenna aimed at an out-of-area TV station.
>Therefore, getting your favorite program with a less than perfect picture is
>better than not getting it at all.
>
Where do you live, the bible belt?
Thumper
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:34:56 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
> FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
> just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
> touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
> display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
> displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
> or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
> tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.
>
> The mandate is dead IMO.
>

God forbid that digital terrestrial broadcasting might have a chance to
grow in content, number of channels, and number of viewers. Have to kill
OTA before it gets bigger, threaten cable, satellite, and don't forget
about internet delivery. Ironic that internet delivery might even be
offered "wireless" on some of the old auctioned TV channels.
It's obvious that the percentage of OTA viewers is being manipulated.
The CEA is not a friend of the consumer and especially the citizens RF
spectrum property. Actually, with the rush to auction, we have no friend
to protect our RF spectrum property.
June 18, 2005 6:32:17 PM

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

Eli Renfro wrote:

>>There are more HDTV sets without tuners than with. This is nothing
>>new. Please move along...
>
>
> That there are no tuners whatsoever in these is the point.....no NTSC nor
> HD. It is new.
>
>

That would make it a display rather than a TV, wouldn't it?
June 18, 2005 6:38:11 PM

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

kelvinyany@gmail.com wrote:

> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
> hdtv without a turner? DUH.
>

I have analog tv's without a tuner. They call them monitors. You can use
them for connecting to your computer.
June 18, 2005 6:49:34 PM

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

Fred Bloggs wrote:

>>What is the antenna for if not for receiving TV over the air signals??
>>
>
> Pheonix is on the flight path to Roswell. It is a well known fact that
> Aliens live in the area and use roof top antennae for communication with
> spaceships that are coming in land. That is why so many earthlings in the
> area wrap their heads in foil to protect themselves from Blortok ray-guns.
>
> Blorg
>

Blorg. Blortok ray-guns may have been the best years ago but now, they
are second rate today. Better start spending more money on research and
development or your company will go the way of "Zenith".
June 18, 2005 6:52:58 PM

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

David wrote:

> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fgm6b1ls7bf12ep3g8clkeui46gpjlvnd2@4ax.com...
>
>>>My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD
>>>recordings.
>>
>>What are these hard drives in?
>>
>>HDTV tuner boxes?
>>
>>Or a PC used as a TIVO?
>
>
> A PC used as a Tivo. Two harddrives are in the PC and three USB drives
> external.
>
>
What software are you using?
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:10:13 PM

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

Blue Cat (bluecat22@go.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden to
> provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless he
> cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
> provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
> few do.

The law was recently changed to allow satellite providers to do the same,
but the "significantly watched" maps are pretty inaccurate, especially
because of cable and satellite penetration. Locally, the Baltimore
stations are *very* much "significantly watched" by anybody with an
antenna, but since cable and satellite doesn't provide them, the overall
percentage is low.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SalesToFriends.gif
June 18, 2005 11:49:04 PM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:4JOdnS65E5oV8CnfRVn-gg@rogers.com...
> David wrote:
>
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgm6b1ls7bf12ep3g8clkeui46gpjlvnd2@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD
>>>>recordings.
>>>
>>>What are these hard drives in?
>>>
>>>HDTV tuner boxes?
>>>
>>>Or a PC used as a TIVO?
>>
>>
>> A PC used as a Tivo. Two harddrives are in the PC and three USB drives
>> external.
> What software are you using?

I use a hardware card, Myhd.

http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/video/mdp130....

It rocks.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 2:21:38 AM

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

"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8mg8b11slflvmq93cgpbp3g5dl09nrnoai@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:25:42 -0400, "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Many people
> >> remember antennas and want nothing to do with them and their
> >> maintenance.
> >> Your signal can only get so good. I used to have an OTA receiver
> >> until my cable company got everything on cable in HD that I could get
> >> OTA . Now they have 3 times as much not to mention all the other
> >> channels.
> >
> >I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden
to
> >provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless
he
> >cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
> >provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
> >few do. Some of the TV stations in my area like to preempt network
> >programming, and the only way to get a network broadcast when this is
> >happening is to use an OTA antenna aimed at an out-of-area TV station.
> >Therefore, getting your favorite program with a less than perfect picture
is
> >better than not getting it at all.
> >
> Where do you live, the bible belt?
> Thumper
I don't believe that South Florida is in the Bible Belt. When the local
stations preempt programs, it is sometimes for a Billy Graham special, but
other times it is for "Sports Jam Live", or even an infomercial.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 7:15:23 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
> satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV, the 3%
> who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely" on OTA.

I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the US, LOTS
of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those people have cable or
satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen noodles and drink kool aid from a
jelly jar. They aren't paying anybody for TV service. What is the TV
service of choice in the ghetto? ANTENNA. Now, on up from the ghetto you
have another HUGE class of people who have a fair bit more money but they
still can't justify cable or satellite, they have house/car payments to make
and just can't swing another $60-$100 for TV service. Perhaps these people
got left out of the surveys, because I KNOW they amount to more than 7.5% of
the population.

I also think that HDTV may be just what broadcasters need to boost their
popularity. I think more and more people will become aware of what is
available OTA when HD gets bigger.

--Dan
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 7:15:24 AM

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

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fr5te.30717$J12.20576@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
>> satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV, the 3%
>> who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely" on OTA.
>
> I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the US,
> LOTS
> of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those people have cable or
> satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen noodles and drink kool aid from
> a
> jelly jar. They aren't paying anybody for TV service. What is the TV
> service of choice in the ghetto? ANTENNA. Now, on up from the ghetto you
> have another HUGE class of people who have a fair bit more money but they
> still can't justify cable or satellite, they have house/car payments to
> make
> and just can't swing another $60-$100 for TV service. Perhaps these
> people
> got left out of the surveys, because I KNOW they amount to more than 7.5%
> of
> the population.
>
> I also think that HDTV may be just what broadcasters need to boost their
> popularity. I think more and more people will become aware of what is
> available OTA when HD gets bigger.
>
> --Dan

I wish they had must broadcast rules for local sports team broadcasts. If I
could get Mariner's baseball games OTA I'd probably dump my Sat service and
go it alone with OTA.
June 19, 2005 2:17:32 PM

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

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:15:23 GMT, "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
>> satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV, the 3%
>> who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely" on OTA.
>
>I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the US, LOTS
>of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those people have cable or
>satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen noodles and drink kool aid from a
>jelly jar. They aren't paying anybody for TV service. What is the TV
>service of choice in the ghetto? ANTENNA.

Have you ever been in the projects? They have cable tv.





> Now, on up from the ghetto you
>have another HUGE class of people who have a fair bit more money but they
>still can't justify cable or satellite, they have house/car payments to make
>and just can't swing another $60-$100 for TV service. Perhaps these people
>got left out of the surveys, because I KNOW they amount to more than 7.5% of
>the population.
>
>I also think that HDTV may be just what broadcasters need to boost their
>popularity. I think more and more people will become aware of what is
>available OTA when HD gets bigger.
>
>--Dan
>
Believe what you want to believ . The statistics say differently.
Thumper
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 2:17:33 PM

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

Thumper wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:15:23 GMT, "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
>>> satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV,
>>> the 3% who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely"
>>> on OTA.
>>
>> I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the
>> US, LOTS of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those
>> people have cable or satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen
>> noodles and drink kool aid from a jelly jar. They aren't paying
>> anybody for TV service. What is the TV service of choice in the
>> ghetto? ANTENNA.
>
> Have you ever been in the projects? They have cable tv.
>

I have, though my experiences predate cable, and our choices were
ABC/NBC/CBS and that independent in NY, WOR. Of course, back then, even in
the projects, one could walk the streets after dark.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 5:03:02 PM

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

akjack@excite.com (Jack Ak) wrote in
news:a6j6b154du0rp89h7j85cijmr34a413vie@4ax.com:

> Remember when TV programming was called a vast wasteland?
> That statement also generated controversy.

That's because the person who said it (Newton Minnow, chairman of the
FCC at the time) was hinting at government action to clean it up.

In the same speech, he also said "Some say the public interest is
merely what interests the public. I disagree.", or in other words,
"Momma government knows best".

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 5:23:19 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1e49b2314e497c989de2@news.nabs.net...
> Blue Cat (bluecat22@go.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden
>> to
>> provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless
>> he
>> cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
>> provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
>> few do.
>
> The law was recently changed to allow satellite providers to do the same,
> but the "significantly watched" maps are pretty inaccurate, especially
> because of cable and satellite penetration. Locally, the Baltimore
> stations are *very* much "significantly watched" by anybody with an
> antenna, but since cable and satellite doesn't provide them, the overall
> percentage is low.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SalesToFriends.gif


Jeff,

Where can I look into this? I am in the NYC DMA in Fairfield County CT and
the problem with Sat has also been I could only get the NYC locals in CT.
OTA isn't really an option for me based upon the terrian and shelf rock.

Thanks ...
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 5:23:20 PM

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

Gomer Jones (Iamnot@liberty.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Where can I look into this? I am in the NYC DMA in Fairfield County CT and
> the problem with Sat has also been I could only get the NYC locals in CT.
> OTA isn't really an option for me based upon the terrian and shelf rock.

There is a request for comments posted at the FCC website. I saw a reference
to it on AVS Forum, but other than that I can't recall where it was. It
wasn't important enough for me to bookmark, since I have an antenna and get
the stations I want to get.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLi...
June 21, 2005 3:48:30 PM

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

In article <hqgse.5307$NX4.2384@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> if I was using OTA I would want a separate
> tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.

Wow. You're still hoping that COFDM will make an appearance. I'm still
hoping that you'll make a disappearance.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 5:04:58 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d20b72416df4215989df0@news.nabs.net...
> Gomer Jones (Iamnot@liberty.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Where can I look into this? I am in the NYC DMA in Fairfield County CT
>> and
>> the problem with Sat has also been I could only get the NYC locals in CT.
>> OTA isn't really an option for me based upon the terrian and shelf rock.
>
> There is a request for comments posted at the FCC website. I saw a
> reference
> to it on AVS Forum, but other than that I can't recall where it was. It
> wasn't important enough for me to bookmark, since I have an antenna and
> get
> the stations I want to get.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLi...


Thanks I will poke around AVSForum and see what comes up
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 12:59:38 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:INIse.5820$jX6.1914@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> But the reality still remains that few RELY on OTA today. Maybe even less
> than 5% in reality.
>
===============================
We have THREE sets in our house and watch OTA only.
We get all locals in digital/HD.
Satelite and Cable are no longer connected to our house.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:48:39 PM

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

Richard C. wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:INIse.5820$jX6.1914@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> But the reality still remains that few RELY on OTA today. Maybe even
>> less than 5% in reality.
>>
> ===============================
> We have THREE sets in our house and watch OTA only.
> We get all locals in digital/HD.
> Satelite and Cable are no longer connected to our house.


Hey just yesterday I said to my wife we should consider dropping Cable
now that we have a decent OTA receiver. I have the FusionGold 5 plus,
the MIT STB and the BBTI receivers that we tested last week.

She wants the Daily Show and a few others but the cost for cable is high
for just the few shows we need from cable.

Of course with a subscription service which I now plan on doing we can
offer the Daily show and HBO OTA so there you go.

Of course we planned on doing that back in 2000 if COFDM had been
allowed. Just lost five plus years is all waiting for a receiver that
works. Can't very well offer a service where 3 out of 4 can't get all
the channels we intend on using which has been the reality in NYC for
the last five years. And of course it would be nice if we could use the
inexpensive COFDM receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.

But we are going ahead. MPEG4 and 8-VSB with no mobile reception. What a
waste.

Bob Miller
June 22, 2005 11:48:40 PM

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

In article <rgjue.7878$NX4.4515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> And of course it would be nice if we could use the inexpensive COFDM
> receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.

There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
at it. And you could use to continually feed your anger and hostility
because your data casting venture was a no go when COFDM was put in the
trash can.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:48:42 AM

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

Sammy wrote:
> In article <rgjue.7878$NX4.4515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And of course it would be nice if we could use the inexpensive COFDM
>>receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.
>
>
> There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
> not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
> at it. And you could use to continually feed your anger and hostility
> because your data casting venture was a no go when COFDM was put in the
> trash can.
!