Bob Miller - MIT Report?

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

Neil - Salem, MA USA wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AF5Xe.13183$9i4.2080@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.mitinc.co.kr/mitinc/e_site/prod/prod_mdr100.jsp
>>>
>>>Does the Macro Image Technology MDR-200L use LG's 5th generation chip?
>>>
>>>IB
>>>
>>
>>Don't know but will ask them next week when they are here.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
> What's the news, Bob?
>
>



They will not build 5th generation STBs. They are only interested in
modules for integrated DTV sets. Don't think there is a market for
STB's. Same as LG and for that matter this seems to be the prevalent
thinking by most manufacturers.

I have found another company that is interested in building 5th gen STBs
and it looks interesting.

There is more talk of building monitors. That seems to be the buzz. This
from a major owner of LPTV stations.

"Ok LPTV Doomed to go off the air or NOT?

No one will really know until we reach analog sunset and see what the
existing universe of over-the-air viewers (on whom LPTV depends) decide to
do about the new reception challenges confronting them. I personally see
further erosion of over-the-air viewers to be inevitable due to migration
to cable and to direct-to-home satellite. It's anyone's guess to what
extent.

If this is the case than why are CPs still being handed out if they are
being booted off the air?

Because at the moment, analog LPTV even in the absence of cable must-carry
is still viable if there is a good business plan. Be sensitive over the
next three years to try and determine when it isn't then cut your losses
and sell.

Where and when will any windows be open to file for DT on operational
LPTVs ?

Good question. Perhaps someone else has some inside info on that one.

My prediction is that most of our small and medium market LPTVs face a
bleak future due to the reasons I gave above. This group has already
engaged in lively discussion about the importance of rooftop antennas in
an all DTV world. This will be particularly true for digital LPTV.
Perhaps the availability of "Generation 5" and even more refined DTV
tuners and set-top-boxes with their improved multipath rejection and
increased sensitivity will ameliorate the situation. And that the
consumer electronics industry will begin to embrace over-the-air DTV
reception as a viable product feature rather than an unwelcome
governmental mandate they will try their best to circumvent. I can tell
you from attending numerous CES shows and talking with them all, each and
every one sees little future in over-the-air reception, rather it being
products geared for cable, DTH and future broadband. Look for a
proliferation of "monitors" instead of "receivers" in the retail outlets.

In the September 21 issue of "TV Technology" there is a very interesting
article entitled "How Many Tuner Enforcers Does It Take?" by Gary Arlen.
He makes a very interesting point about the fact of the existence of the
current FCC DTV tuner mandate. But who will and how is this really going
to be enforced in the real world? The overworked and homeland security
focused US Customs Service? Are FCC field enforcement people going to
drop more important enforcement activities and become Elliott Ness and
begin raiding the Circuit City and Best Buy stores raiding their shelves
to see which have not been meeting the DTV tuner quotas? I think not. So
we all know that the tuner mandate, although well intentioned, is likely
unenforceable.

Unless the roll out of DTV and sunsetting of analog takes on a whole new
direction so far as the viewers are concerned, unless we begin to see
evidence of a public embracing of over-the-air DTV transmission forsaking
the other technologies, Trinity Broadcasting will likely systematically
sell or abandon most of our small and medium market LPTV facilities that
are no longer capable of being self-supporting financially. We can do
this because we've made great strides in penetrating them with DTH and
cable anyway. I am sympathetic to those who haven't been able to. We
will then concentrate of only the largest markets based on the assumption
that among a very large market size, although statistically low, there
will be a least enough viewers choosing to stay with OTA reception on DTV
to supply a viable audience.

So unless a combination of three factors come into play, I do not see the
as rosy one for digital LPTVs.

1. Cable and DTH local into local "must-carry" for not only Class A but
all LPTVs.
2. Multichannel "must carry" for all DTV stations.
3. An aggressive educational process between now and analog sunset to
bring the viewing public into realization that DTV over-the-air reception
has much to offer."

So the death spiral of OTA continues and strengthens. While in other
countries OTA flourishes and grows. Couldn't have anything to do with
cable and satellite having the power in DC could it.

Many have postulated, including me, that 8-VSB was all about killing
OTA. It is doing the job well. Especially when you look at what is
happening overseas.


Bob Miller

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:13:14 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | They will not build 5th generation STBs. They are only interested in
> | modules for integrated DTV sets. Don't think there is a market for
> | STB's. Same as LG and for that matter this seems to be the prevalent
> | thinking by most manufacturers.
>
> Given the trend to tunerless monitors, aren't they cutting their throat
> but not considering STBs? What about selling the modules to someone that
> wants to make STBs using them?
>
They are selling modules to someone who wants to make STBs. That is the
company I am now talking to. But even they have to be convinced there is
a market.

They are cutting their throats only if they make a product, modules or
STBs, that nobody wants. Nobody in the US today, manufacturers,
broadcasters including this major owner of LPTV and full power stations
quoted here, retailers or the public are showing much interest in OTA
and no one has a plan to convince the public to pay attention. Both may
be true with 8-VSB in the US, modules and STBs are both dead ends. As I
have said OTA is in a death spiral due to 8-VSB in the US.

The one set of broadcasters who might still have an interest in OTA,
LPTV stations, since they have no must carry, are represented here by a
very pessimistic major owner. This thinking as I have said before is
becoming more prevalent as I have predicted it would. The last gasp of
OTA was the FCC in desperation declaring the mandate which now looks to
be failing as again predicted. Retailers, never a fan of OTA DTV STBs
are now in a competitive race for the lowest priced HDTV sets for
connection to cable. That means leave out the OTA receiver, disparage
it, ignore it as was done to me in a Best Buy a few weeks ago.

Sell monitors, they have the lowest cost/highest profit margins.

>
> | I have found another company that is interested in building 5th gen STBs
> | and it looks interesting.
>
> Do tell us more when you can.
>
>
> | There is more talk of building monitors. That seems to be the buzz. This
> | from a major owner of LPTV stations.
> |
> | "Ok LPTV Doomed to go off the air or NOT?
> |
> | No one will really know until we reach analog sunset and see what the
> | existing universe of over-the-air viewers (on whom LPTV depends) decide to
> | do about the new reception challenges confronting them. I personally see
> | further erosion of over-the-air viewers to be inevitable due to migration
> | to cable and to direct-to-home satellite. It's anyone's guess to what
> | extent.
>
> I see OTA DTV and HD is potentially slowing that migration. Clearly if
> OTA never did go DTV/HD, it would be doomed in the face of cable/satellite.
> The fact that it is going the DTV/HD way, should either hold back the
> doom, or give OTA a niche (low end) market.
>
Low end market will be from the Telcos. Broadcasters are now in
competition for the living room with Telcos, the Internet, cable
companies and satellite companies.

The one market they have a major advantage in, mobile and portable, they
have ceded to new players, the Qualcomm, Crown Castle, XM and Sirius
with a few more in the wings. The biggest growth market for broadcasters
will be this mobile and portable market. They gave it away for nothing
but the supreme headache of 8-VSB.

And these new players will be competition for that "low end" market you
talk of since a mobile and portable service can also be received fixed
in the kitchen and bedrooms on smaller screens. So add another set of
competitors for these poor unfortunate broadcasters stuck with MPEG2 and
8-VSB. NONE of their competitors are stuck with such outmoded tools and
they can upgrade as they see fit also.
>
> | If this is the case than why are CPs still being handed out if they are
> | being booted off the air?
> |
> | Because at the moment, analog LPTV even in the absence of cable must-carry
> | is still viable if there is a good business plan. Be sensitive over the
> | next three years to try and determine when it isn't then cut your losses
> | and sell.
> |
> | Where and when will any windows be open to file for DT on operational
> | LPTVs ?
> |
> | Good question. Perhaps someone else has some inside info on that one.
>
> A source I spoke with about 2 weeks ago indicated that LPTV will be mostly
> (perhaps entirely) doing flash cuts. I don't know if a CP will be
> required to test or carry that out. The sense I got is the FCC wants to
> hold LPTV back until all the full power channel elections are done, and
> maybe even after analog cutoff, so LPTV interference issues can be dealt
> with before LPTV stations invest in DTV.
>
Naturally they will flash cut. They need to apply, get a CP and go to
it. By DEFINITION LPTV stations CANNOT interfere. If they do they must
remedy the situation or go off the air. They must DEAL with it not the
FCC or full power stations.

LPTV stations will be able to begin this process within a month, not
after elections or analog cutoff.
>
> | My prediction is that most of our small and medium market LPTVs face a
> | bleak future due to the reasons I gave above. This group has already
> | engaged in lively discussion about the importance of rooftop antennas in
> | an all DTV world. This will be particularly true for digital LPTV.
> | Perhaps the availability of "Generation 5" and even more refined DTV
> | tuners and set-top-boxes with their improved multipath rejection and
> | increased sensitivity will ameliorate the situation. And that the
> | consumer electronics industry will begin to embrace over-the-air DTV
> | reception as a viable product feature rather than an unwelcome
> | governmental mandate they will try their best to circumvent. I can tell
> | you from attending numerous CES shows and talking with them all, each and
> | every one sees little future in over-the-air reception, rather it being
> | products geared for cable, DTH and future broadband. Look for a
> | proliferation of "monitors" instead of "receivers" in the retail outlets.
>
> In the face of that, why would anyone want to be selling receiver
> technology as modules for integrated TVs?
>
Good question and if the manufacturers don't find a market they will not
build either.
>
> | Unless the roll out of DTV and sunsetting of analog takes on a whole new
> | direction so far as the viewers are concerned, unless we begin to see
> | evidence of a public embracing of over-the-air DTV transmission forsaking
> | the other technologies, Trinity Broadcasting will likely systematically
> | sell or abandon most of our small and medium market LPTV facilities that
> | are no longer capable of being self-supporting financially. We can do
> | this because we've made great strides in penetrating them with DTH and
> | cable anyway. I am sympathetic to those who haven't been able to. We
> | will then concentrate of only the largest markets based on the assumption
> | that among a very large market size, although statistically low, there
> | will be a least enough viewers choosing to stay with OTA reception on DTV
> | to supply a viable audience.
>
> I think there will be viability for LPTV in very small communities based
> more on local programming, and the fact that one LPTV station can cover
> the whole community easily. But it's probably going to be limited to just
> one such provider.
>
>
> | So unless a combination of three factors come into play, I do not see the
> | as rosy one for digital LPTVs.
> |
> | 1. Cable and DTH local into local "must-carry" for not only Class A but
> | all LPTVs.
> | 2. Multichannel "must carry" for all DTV stations.
> | 3. An aggressive educational process between now and analog sunset to
> | bring the viewing public into realization that DTV over-the-air reception
> | has much to offer."
>
> As much as I'd want to see MCMC, I don't think it's necessary to keep
> small market LPTV active. Primary must-carry should be sufficient.
>
There you go the death of OTA. No LPTV which are the only ones who do
not have must carry and whats left? Full power stations that do have
must carry and will care less and less about their OTA customers as
there will be fewer and fewer of them. And next you have Senator McCain
asking for the further sale of OTA spectrum down from channel 51 to 40
since no one is watching OTA. "This valuable spectrum should be sold to
those who can use" it will be his battle cry.

And those who can use it will use COFDM just as Qualcomm, Crown Castle,
XM and Sirius are doing already and new entrants will also.
>
> | So the death spiral of OTA continues and strengthens. While in other
> | countries OTA flourishes and grows. Couldn't have anything to do with
> | cable and satellite having the power in DC could it.
> |
> | Many have postulated, including me, that 8-VSB was all about killing
> | OTA. It is doing the job well. Especially when you look at what is
> | happening overseas.
>
> 8-VSB actually works. Too many people are reporting that. So I do not
> see how COFDM would have made any difference. People who have already
> abandoned OTA for cable/satellite, with no intention of going back, aren't
> going to make that decision based on 8-VSB vs. COFDM. Poor performance
> issues of 8-VSB receivers are, IMHO, more due to manufacturer research
> maturity than to any technical merits of one over the other. Still, the
> "big stick" and "bright light" style of OTA that is more common in the USA
> than in other countries means that the advantages COFDM does have over
> 8-VSB (e.g. multipath) are less of an issue here. Signal strength, noise,
> and co-channel interference are more of an issue. And 8-VSB has an
> advantage there with it's lower peak-to-average power ratio.
>

Your mind is closed and you are deaf and dumb to my arguments but I will
make them one more time.

We, I, am living proof of why COFDM would have succeeded and 8-VSB has
failed. We tried and continue to try to get something to work with
8-VSB. We have tried for six years. And you set there and say you see no
competitive difference for the two in the US.

It is simple. No one has a business plan for 8-VSB that makes sense. The
proof of that is the sad reality in the US today. If you have an idea
let me know.

With COFDM on the other hand we see numerous entities investing or ready
to invest billions with COFDM right here in the US. Qualcomm has now
started paying full power stations to stop broadcasting on their
channels adjacent to or the same as their channel 55 so that they can
proceed with their plan today.

Do you see anyone in the world even considering 8-VSB accept under force
of a government?

As I have said we and others would have been giving away free COFDM
receivers since 2000 but no one has been giving away free 8-VSB
receivers with the exception of USDTV which comes close at $19.95.

The reality of the difference is staring you in the face. The sales
figures for COFDM receivers in any other country leaves 8-VSB sales in
the dust. This will continue until full power OTA DTV on channels below
51 is dead in the US and ubiquitous overseas. And I am sure you will
still say there is no technical difference.

The fact remains that in the most forthright test, the market, COFDM
works and 8-VSB doesn't. Until someone proves otherwise, and I am trying
(I must be sick). Don't you find it the least bit incongruous that the
one trying the hardest to make 8-VSB work is its biggest critic?

Bob Miller