Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DTV and the Disenfranchised

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 7:39:51 PM

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

K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> <http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;

Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses OTA":

"The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with at
least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local feeds)."

I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my DBS
boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I can
get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?

--
Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
| Turn, turn, turn.
| Tell us the lesson
| That we should learn"
| -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
June 29, 2005 2:37:46 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
> K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > <http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>
> Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses
OTA":
>
> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with at
> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local feeds)."
>
> I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
> programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my DBS
> boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I can
> get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
> picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>
> --
The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly older)
people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free of
charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.

I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation prevails in
the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital penetration
is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a helluva
lot more difficult.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm





> Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
> | Turn, turn, turn.
> | Tell us the lesson
> | That we should learn"
> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
Related resources
June 29, 2005 2:37:47 AM

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

Ivan wrote:
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
>
>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>>
>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>>
>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses
>
> OTA":
>
>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with at
>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local feeds)."
>>
>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my DBS
>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I can
>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>>
>>--
>
> The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly older)
> people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free of
> charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
>
> I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation prevails in
> the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital penetration
> is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a helluva
> lot more difficult.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
>> | Turn, turn, turn.
>> | Tell us the lesson
>> | That we should learn"
>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
>
>
>
You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on low
fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.

If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it, maybe.
June 29, 2005 3:35:03 AM

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

"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
> Ivan wrote:
> > "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
> >
> >>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> >>
> >>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
> >>
> >>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses
> >
> > OTA":
> >
> >> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with at
> >> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
> >> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
> >> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
> >> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
feeds)."
> >>
> >>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
> >>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my DBS
> >>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I
can
> >>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
> >>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
> >>
> >>--
> >
> > The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly
older)
> > people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free
of
> > charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
> >
> > I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
prevails in
> > the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
penetration
> > is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
helluva
> > lot more difficult.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
> >> | Turn, turn, turn.
> >> | Tell us the lesson
> >> | That we should learn"
> >> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
> >
> >
> >
> You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on low
> fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
>
> If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it, maybe.
>
>
I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it is
here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the kids
have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
bought and paid for.
June 29, 2005 3:22:20 PM

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

Ivan wrote:
> "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
>
>>Ivan wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>>>>
>>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses
>>>
>>>OTA":
>>>
>>>
>>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with at
>>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
>>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
>>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
>>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
>
> feeds)."
>
>>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
>>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my DBS
>>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I
>
> can
>
>>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
>>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly
>
> older)
>
>>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free
>
> of
>
>>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
>>>
>>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
>
> prevails in
>
>>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
>
> penetration
>
>>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
>
> helluva
>
>>>lot more difficult.
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
>>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
>>>> | Tell us the lesson
>>>> | That we should learn"
>>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on low
>>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
>>
>>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it, maybe.
>>
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it is
> here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
> incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the kids
> have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
> bought and paid for.
>
>
How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
below the poverty level here in the U.S..
June 29, 2005 11:57:55 PM

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

"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
> Ivan wrote:
> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
> >
> >>Ivan wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
> >>>>
> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses
> >>>
> >>>OTA":
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with
at
> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
> >
> > feeds)."
> >
> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my
DBS
> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I
> >
> > can
> >
> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>
> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly
> >
> > older)
> >
> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free
> >
> > of
> >
> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
> >>>
> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
> >
> > prevails in
> >
> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
> >
> > penetration
> >
> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
> >
> > helluva
> >
> >>>lot more difficult.
> >>>
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
> >>>> | That we should learn"
> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on low
> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
> >>
> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it,
maybe.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it
is
> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the
kids
> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
> > bought and paid for.
> >
> >
> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
>
>
Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as being
among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of them in
the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't appear to
be too badly off.

Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below the
poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
comfortable life style to people living in other countries.

We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the official
poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television and
seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so how
can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?

"Collectively older people command a substantial disposable income and
control a significant proportion of the country's wealth and savings. If
sufficient of that wealth goes back into circulation it will generate
business and employment opportunities that will help to keep the economy
healthy."

http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/resources/publications/RSA/RS...
June 30, 2005 1:25:50 AM

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

In article <3ig963Fl9vdkU1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
>> Ivan wrote:
>> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
>> >
>> >>Ivan wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody uses
>> >>>
>> >>>OTA":
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes with
>at
>> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22 percent
>> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three percent
>> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American homes
>> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
>> >
>> > feeds)."
>> >
>> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
>> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck, my
>DBS
>> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure, I
>> >
>> > can
>> >
>> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
>> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>--
>> >>>
>> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly
>> >
>> > older)
>> >
>> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free
>> >
>> > of
>> >
>> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
>> >>>
>> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
>> >
>> > prevails in
>> >
>> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
>> >
>> > penetration
>> >
>> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
>> >
>> > helluva
>> >
>> >>>lot more difficult.
>> >>>
>> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
>> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
>> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
>> >>>> | That we should learn"
>> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on low
>> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
>> >>
>> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it,
>maybe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it
>is
>> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
>> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the
>kids
>> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
>> > bought and paid for.
>> >
>> >
>> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
>> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
>>
>>
>Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as being
>among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of them in
>the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't appear to
>be too badly off.
>
>Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below the
>poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
>comfortable life style to people living in other countries.
>
>We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the official
>poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television and
>seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so how
>can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?
>
Owning a car and a TV does not make one well off. A car is nearly a necessity
here in the USA.


>"Collectively older people command a substantial disposable income and
>control a significant proportion of the country's wealth and savings. If
>sufficient of that wealth goes back into circulation it will generate
>business and employment opportunities that will help to keep the economy
>healthy."
>
>http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/resources/publications/RSA/RS...
>
>
June 30, 2005 2:50:25 AM

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

"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:D 9v3mo$8a8$1@news.xmission.com...
> In article <3ig963Fl9vdkU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
<ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
> >> Ivan wrote:
> >> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
> >> >
> >> >>Ivan wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >>
>>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody
uses
> >> >>>
> >> >>>OTA":
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes
with
> >at
> >> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22
percent
> >> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three
percent
> >> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American
homes
> >> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
> >> >
> >> > feeds)."
> >> >
> >> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
> >> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck,
my
> >DBS
> >> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure,
I
> >> >
> >> > can
> >> >
> >> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
> >> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>--
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of
(mainly
> >> >
> >> > older)
> >> >
> >> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed
free
> >> >
> >> > of
> >> >
> >> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
> >> >
> >> > prevails in
> >> >
> >> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
> >> >
> >> > penetration
> >> >
> >> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
> >> >
> >> > helluva
> >> >
> >> >>>lot more difficult.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
> >> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
> >> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
> >> >>>> | That we should learn"
> >> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on
low
> >> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
> >> >>
> >> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it,
> >maybe.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as
it
> >is
> >> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
> >> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the
> >kids
> >> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long since
been
> >> > bought and paid for.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
> >> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
> >>
> >>
> >Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as
being
> >among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of them
in
> >the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't appear
to
> >be too badly off.
> >
> >Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below the
> >poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
> >comfortable life style to people living in other countries.
> >
> >We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the official
> >poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television and
> >seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so
how
> >can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?
> >
> Owning a car and a TV does not make one well off. A car is nearly a
necessity
> here in the USA.
>
Exactly the same reason used here in the UK, just as a colour TV,
cigarettes, and booze are no doubt termed as being a necessity!


>
> >"Collectively older people command a substantial disposable income and
> >control a significant proportion of the country's wealth and savings. If
> >sufficient of that wealth goes back into circulation it will generate
> >business and employment opportunities that will help to keep the economy
> >healthy."
> >
> >http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/resources/publications/RSA/RS...
> >
> >
June 30, 2005 2:50:26 AM

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

In article <3igj9aFlfevdU1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:D 9v3mo$8a8$1@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <3ig963Fl9vdkU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
><ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
>> >> Ivan wrote:
>> >> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >>Ivan wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >>
>>>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody
>uses
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>OTA":
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes
>with
>> >at
>> >> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22
>percent
>> >> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three
>percent
>> >> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American
>homes
>> >> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
>> >> >
>> >> > feeds)."
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
>> >> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck,
>my
>> >DBS
>> >> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure,
>I
>> >> >
>> >> > can
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
>> >> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>--
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of
>(mainly
>> >> >
>> >> > older)
>> >> >
>> >> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed
>free
>> >> >
>> >> > of
>> >> >
>> >> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
>> >> >
>> >> > prevails in
>> >> >
>> >> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
>> >> >
>> >> > penetration
>> >> >
>> >> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
>> >> >
>> >> > helluva
>> >> >
>> >> >>>lot more difficult.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
>> >> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
>> >> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
>> >> >>>> | That we should learn"
>> >> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on
>low
>> >> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it,
>> >maybe.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as
>it
>> >is
>> >> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
>> >> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the
>> >kids
>> >> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long since
>been
>> >> > bought and paid for.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
>> >> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as
>being
>> >among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of them
>in
>> >the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't appear
>to
>> >be too badly off.
>> >
>> >Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below the
>> >poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
>> >comfortable life style to people living in other countries.
>> >
>> >We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the official
>> >poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television and
>> >seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so
>how
>> >can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?
>> >
>> Owning a car and a TV does not make one well off. A car is nearly a
>necessity
>> here in the USA.
>>
>Exactly the same reason used here in the UK, just as a colour TV,
>cigarettes, and booze are no doubt termed as being a necessity!
>
>

I didnt mean it that way. You have to remember that just one good size State
here in the USA is as large as the whole of Great Brittain. So to travel to
see my brother on the other side of Utah I have to trave some 300+ miles one
direction.

Also living in Utah, we have all 4 types of terrain to deal with. Utah is a
Desert/mountainous/high plains region and as such riding a bycicle or train or
walking just doesnt cut it.



>>
>> >"Collectively older people command a substantial disposable income and
>> >control a significant proportion of the country's wealth and savings. If
>> >sufficient of that wealth goes back into circulation it will generate
>> >business and employment opportunities that will help to keep the economy
>> >healthy."
>> >
>> >http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/resources/publications/RSA/RS...
>> >
>> >
>
>
June 30, 2005 2:50:26 AM

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

In article <3igj9aFlfevdU1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:D 9v3mo$8a8$1@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <3ig963Fl9vdkU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
><ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
>> >> Ivan wrote:
>> >> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >>Ivan wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >>
>>>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody
>uses
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>OTA":
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes
>with
>> >at
>> >> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22
>percent
>> >> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three
>percent
>> >> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American
>homes
>> >> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
>> >> >
>> >> > feeds)."
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
>> >> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS. Heck,
>my
>> >DBS
>> >> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming. Sure,
>I
>> >> >
>> >> > can
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that overcompressed
>> >> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>--
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of
>(mainly
>> >> >
>> >> > older)
>> >> >
>> >> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed
>free
>> >> >
>> >> > of
>> >> >
>> >> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
>> >> >
>> >> > prevails in
>> >> >
>> >> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
>> >> >
>> >> > penetration
>> >> >
>> >> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a
>> >> >
>> >> > helluva
>> >> >
>> >> >>>lot more difficult.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
>> >> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
>> >> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
>> >> >>>> | That we should learn"
>> >> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly on
>low
>> >> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize it,
>> >maybe.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as
>it
>> >is
>> >> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
>> >> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the
>> >kids
>> >> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long since
>been
>> >> > bought and paid for.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
>> >> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as
>being
>> >among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of them
>in
>> >the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't appear
>to
>> >be too badly off.
>> >
>> >Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below the
>> >poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
>> >comfortable life style to people living in other countries.
>> >
>> >We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the official
>> >poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television and
>> >seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so
>how
>> >can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?
>> >
>> Owning a car and a TV does not make one well off. A car is nearly a
>necessity
>> here in the USA.
>>
>Exactly the same reason used here in the UK, just as a colour TV,
>cigarettes, and booze are no doubt termed as being a necessity!
>
>
Those who think cars are not a necessity are the same people who think soap
and a weekly bath are not a necessity.
June 30, 2005 3:50:34 AM

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

"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:D 9v72d$aen$2@news.xmission.com...
> In article <3igj9aFlfevdU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
<ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
> >news:D 9v3mo$8a8$1@news.xmission.com...
> >> In article <3ig963Fl9vdkU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
> ><ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
> >> >> Ivan wrote:
> >> >> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Ivan wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >>>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody
> >uses
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>OTA":
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes
> >with
> >> >at
> >> >> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22
> >percent
> >> >> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three
> >percent
> >> >> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American
> >homes
> >> >> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
> >> >> >
> >> >> > feeds)."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
> >> >> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS.
Heck,
> >my
> >> >DBS
> >> >> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming.
Sure,
> >I
> >> >> >
> >> >> > can
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that
overcompressed
> >> >> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>--
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of
> >(mainly
> >> >> >
> >> >> > older)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed
> >free
> >> >> >
> >> >> > of
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
> >> >> >
> >> >> > prevails in
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
> >> >> >
> >> >> > penetration
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be
a
> >> >> >
> >> >> > helluva
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>lot more difficult.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
> >> >> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
> >> >> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
> >> >> >>>> | That we should learn"
> >> >> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly
on
> >low
> >> >> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize
it,
> >> >maybe.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same
as
> >it
> >> >is
> >> >> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real
disposable
> >> >> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off,
the
> >> >kids
> >> >> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long
since
> >been
> >> >> > bought and paid for.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
> >> >> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as
> >being
> >> >among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of
them
> >in
> >> >the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't
appear
> >to
> >> >be too badly off.
> >> >
> >> >Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below
the
> >> >poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
> >> >comfortable life style to people living in other countries.
> >> >
> >> >We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the
official
> >> >poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television
and
> >> >seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so
> >how
> >> >can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?
> >> >
> >> Owning a car and a TV does not make one well off. A car is nearly a
> >necessity
> >> here in the USA.
> >>
> >Exactly the same reason used here in the UK, just as a colour TV,
> >cigarettes, and booze are no doubt termed as being a necessity!
> >
> >
> Those who think cars are not a necessity are the same people who think
soap
> and a weekly bath are not a necessity.
>
>
The thread has wandered a bit of topic, but sufficed to say that I know for
a fact that there are some of us in both your country and mine, who are old
enough to remember what 'real' poverty was all about.
June 30, 2005 12:02:53 PM

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

In article <3igmqqFl637aU1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:D 9v72d$aen$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <3igj9aFlfevdU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
><ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
>> >news:D 9v3mo$8a8$1@news.xmission.com...
>> >> In article <3ig963Fl9vdkU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
>> ><ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:42C2BCAC.1070003@yahoo.com...
>> >> >> Ivan wrote:
>> >> >> > "oldguy" <masqueme-news1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:42C1CA2B.90906@yahoo.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Ivan wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>news:MPG.1d2b719281caae39989e0e@news.nabs.net...
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >>
>> >>>>>><http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Big-picture/f_Beac...;
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>Once again, the same bogus numbers are used to show that "nobody
>> >uses
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>OTA":
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> "The CEA reports that of the nearly 110 million American homes
>> >with
>> >> >at
>> >> >> >>>> least one TV set, 68 percent receive a cable signal and 22
>> >percent
>> >> >> >>>> receive a DBS signal. The research shows that roughly three
>> >percent
>> >> >> >>>> receive both cable and DBS. In total, 87 percent of American
>> >homes
>> >> >> >>>> have access to cable or satellite (and thus network and local
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > feeds)."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>I'm one of those 87%, yet I rely on OTA for my broadcast network
>> >> >> >>>>programming...even on the same TVs that are hooked to DBS.
>Heck,
>> >my
>> >> >DBS
>> >> >> >>>>boxes rely on OTA for *their* broadcast network programming.
>Sure,
>> >I
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > can
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>get the SD channels from DirecTV, but why watch that
>overcompressed
>> >> >> >>>>picture when I can see a clean OTA digital signal?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>--
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of
>> >(mainly
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > older)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed
>> >free
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > prevails in
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > penetration
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be
>a
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > helluva
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>lot more difficult.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4092750.stm
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
>> >> >> >>>> | Turn, turn, turn.
>> >> >> >>>> | Tell us the lesson
>> >> >> >>>> | That we should learn"
>> >> >> >>>> | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>You need to remember that the "hard core" older people are mostly
>on
>> >low
>> >> >> >>fixed incomes and can't afford the expensive new technology.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>If the Government provides it free, probably. If they subsidize
>it,
>> >> >maybe.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same
>as
>> >it
>> >> >is
>> >> >> > here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real
>disposable
>> >> >> > incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off,
>the
>> >> >kids
>> >> >> > have left home and many of the material necessities have long
>since
>> >been
>> >> >> > bought and paid for.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> How many are "a lot"? There are still "a lot" whose fixed income are
>> >> >> below the poverty level here in the U.S..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Regarding the amount of actual money received, UK pensioners rate as
>> >being
>> >> >among the worst off in Western Europe. However I meet quite a few of
>them
>> >in
>> >> >the course of my work and in the main the majority of them don't
>appear
>> >to
>> >> >be too badly off.
>> >> >
>> >> >Also it all depends on what the American perception of 'living below
>the
>> >> >poverty line' means, as it might equate to what may be considered as a
>> >> >comfortable life style to people living in other countries.
>> >> >
>> >> >We are often told here in the UK about 'people living below the
>official
>> >> >poverty line' yet many of them appear to own a car, colour television
>and
>> >> >seem to enjoy many of the same creature comforts as the rest of us, so
>> >how
>> >> >can this be termed as 'living below the poverty line'?
>> >> >
>> >> Owning a car and a TV does not make one well off. A car is nearly a
>> >necessity
>> >> here in the USA.
>> >>
>> >Exactly the same reason used here in the UK, just as a colour TV,
>> >cigarettes, and booze are no doubt termed as being a necessity!
>> >
>> >
>> Those who think cars are not a necessity are the same people who think
>soap
>> and a weekly bath are not a necessity.
>>
>>
>The thread has wandered a bit of topic, but sufficed to say that I know for
>a fact that there are some of us in both your country and mine, who are old
>enough to remember what 'real' poverty was all about.
>
>
So true, many of them truely went without eating etc... Look at WWII, my
mother as a child said it was very hard not having even the simplest of things
like sugar unless you got it rationed to you.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 5:16:49 PM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:03 +0100, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it is
>here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
>incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the kids
>have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
>bought and paid for.

Few people pay off their homes any more, with 60 and 100 year mortgages
coming into favor to deal with the unbelievable housing costs. Kids are
not leaving home in droves, and even the ones that do are dependent on
their parents for financial support. And the material necessities include
medical care; one hospital stay can wipe out your finances.
July 1, 2005 10:02:15 PM

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

In article <1120238226.4a0e3b43a354963cca8903a175ec5dd6@teranews>, kimbawlion@aol.com wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:03 +0100, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it is
>>here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
>>incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the kids
>>have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
>>bought and paid for.
>
>Few people pay off their homes any more, with 60 and 100 year mortgages
>coming into favor to deal with the unbelievable housing costs. Kids are
>not leaving home in droves, and even the ones that do are dependent on
>their parents for financial support. And the material necessities include
>medical care; one hospital stay can wipe out your finances.
>
>
>
>
>

Havent these kids heard of getting a second or even a first job?

Jesus, most of our parents worked 2 jobs to make ends meet. Cant todays
teenagers/young adults pull their asses away from their ipods and internet to
get a job?
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 10:36:42 PM

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

Kimba W. Lion (kimbawlion@aol.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> Few people pay off their homes any more, with 60 and 100 year mortgages
> coming into favor to deal with the unbelievable housing costs.

Gee, and I was just considering re-financing with a 15-year mortgage
because it would have the same payment as my current 30-year yet cost less
in the long run.

With housing prices here rising at a rate of nearly 25%/year here, I don't
think I'm in an area much different from your "unbelievable housing costs".
I guess all those taxes really do make it hard to live on £1M/year in the
UK.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TeriHatcher.g...
July 1, 2005 11:32:38 PM

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

"GMAN" <glenzabr@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:D a40h2$hqv$1@news.xmission.com...
> In article <1120238226.4a0e3b43a354963cca8903a175ec5dd6@teranews>,
kimbawlion@aol.com wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:03 +0100, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I'm pretty sure that the situation in the US must be much the same as it
is
> >>here in the UK i.e. a lot of older people have larger real disposable
> >>incomes than many younger folk, as their mortgages are paid off, the
kids
> >>have left home and many of the material necessities have long since been
> >>bought and paid for.
> >
> >Few people pay off their homes any more, with 60 and 100 year mortgages
> >coming into favor to deal with the unbelievable housing costs. Kids are
> >not leaving home in droves, and even the ones that do are dependent on
> >their parents for financial support. And the material necessities include
> >medical care; one hospital stay can wipe out your finances.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Havent these kids heard of getting a second or even a first job?
>
> Jesus, most of our parents worked 2 jobs to make ends meet. Cant todays
> teenagers/young adults pull their asses away from their ipods and internet
to
> get a job?
>

What I said in my original post has been relatively true up until now, but
things are beginning to change. Ridiculous house prices now mean that kids
can no longer afford to purchase their own homes and move out, so they stay
at home longer, in many cases being subsidised by their parents.

Also, although people are entitled to free healthcare in the UK, the growing
number of old people is beginning to impose major financial strains onto the
health service. I know people who have actually been forced into selling
their own homes (which they've worked hard to pay for most of their lives)
to finance the cost of moving into private nursing homes. So yes, things are
now becoming worse for a growing number of elderly people here as well.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:14:55 AM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:37:46 +0100 Ivan <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

| The problem as I see it Jeff, is that there is a hard core of (mainly older)
| people who even if digital OTA equipment is offered and installed free of
| charge, will still point blankly refuse to accept change.

If DTV actually works for all my OTA TV channels, then I'm OK with it.
But I'm concerned that the more fringe ones will have troubles.


| I presume that human nature being what it is a similar situation prevails in
| the US. As someone pointed out while back, 60 percent of digital penetration
| is the easy part, converting the other 40 per cent is going to be a helluva
| lot more difficult.

In cities where the signals are strong, I suspect penetration will be a
lot higher than it is in rural areas where in many places you have to
reach beyond 100 miles and/or over mountains to get all the networks.

Satellite provider do offer "all network channels", and they do it with
OTA when they are near network affiliates. Trouble is, in many places
you can even be within 10 miles of an affiliate and get nothing over the
air because of mountains, and they apparently are not allowed to offer
the satellite stations within a certain mileage radius of the local ones
no matter how bad the reception. DTV, I fear, will expand the scope of
these problems.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:04:05 PM

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

The way people are going on, you'd think TV was a right or something!

If your told that you need to buy a new TV before 2008 or you won't be
able to watch anymore. And, you choose not to do so, you got to not watch
TV. Where's the problem. Your choice, your problem.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:29:06 PM

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

On 05 Jul 2005 09:04:05 GMT gordon.bentley@rsmi.com.au wrote:

| The way people are going on, you'd think TV was a right or something!
|
| If your told that you need to buy a new TV before 2008 or you won't be
| able to watch anymore. And, you choose not to do so, you got to not watch
| TV. Where's the problem. Your choice, your problem.

Then broadcasters should have the choice about whether they broadcast in
analog or digital. The government should not be forcing them to switch to
digital. The whole issue of subsidizing comes about not because digital
exists, but because the government is mandating the removal of analog.
Given broadcasting choice, I'm sure there will be some broadcasters that
prefer to continue to serve an analog market as long as that market
continues to exist. Eliminate the mandates for a given area until the
subsidized converters are available.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:29:07 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> Then broadcasters should have the choice about whether they broadcast in
> analog or digital.

No, they should *not* get a choice.

In addition to all the advantages of the actual digital broadcast (better
picture, sound, etc.), adjacent digital channels interfere with each other
less than analog, so you can put more frequencies in a single market.

For markets that are "twins" (like Baltimore/Washington where I live), this
is a really big deal, as we are pretty much at the limit of analog channels
because of the need for skipping a channel between active channels.

Adding digital hasn't affected analog quality, so once analog goes away,
there should be room for 20 new channels. This can give viewers more
choices of free TV, so it's a good thing.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/BabyBlues/OnTheRemote.gif
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:03:38 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d35d00a837bae6f989e40@news.nabs.net>, Jeff Rife wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > Then broadcasters should have the choice about whether they broadcast in
> > analog or digital.
>
> No, they should *not* get a choice.
>
> In addition to all the advantages of the actual digital broadcast (better
> picture, sound, etc.)

That's debatable. Both systems have deficiencies that impair the original
video signal in different ways.

> adjacent digital channels interfere with each other
> less than analog, so you can put more frequencies in a single market.

Yes, provided you accept the compromise that a digital transmission will have
information discarded before it is even broadcast, so even with "perfect"
reception you can *never* obtain a replica of the original signal.

Rod.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:03:39 AM

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

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000aac.005505a0@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...

< snip >

> Yes, provided you accept the compromise that a digital transmission will
have
> information discarded before it is even broadcast, so even with "perfect"
> reception you can *never* obtain a replica of the original signal.

Except for a few over-compressed channels, my digital is subjectively better
than my analog. Given the limitations of human perception, trying to
deliver
a replica of the original signal would be a waste.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:02:56 PM

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

In article <BB1ze.7700$Eo.3715@fed1read04>, Sal M. Onella wrote:
> > Yes, provided you accept the compromise that a digital transmission will
> have
> > information discarded before it is even broadcast, so even with "perfect"
> > reception you can *never* obtain a replica of the original signal.
>
> Except for a few over-compressed channels, my digital is subjectively better
> than my analog. Given the limitations of human perception, trying to
> deliver
> a replica of the original signal would be a waste.

I too watch digital broadcasts because, on balance, it's the best available to
the public, and the only way to see the whole 16:9 picture at all. However,
being familiar with the picture quality of original signals from broadcast
cameras, even 625-line ones, means I cannot accept that it is human perception
that limits what can be seen in today's broadcasts.

I've even met people who describe DVD as "broadcast quality". Unquestionably it
will be better than what they had before (VHS), but it's sad that anybody
thinks this is the best that electronic photography can do. Not only *can* it
do better, but it routinely *does* on a daily basis. At present, for a variety
of reasons, digital processing being one of them, much of the quality available
from broadcast cameras is thrown away before transmission, and along with it
any realistic argument in favour of such things as "high definition" systems,
because we are wasting what we've already got.

Rod.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:03:27 PM

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

Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> Yes, provided you accept the compromise that a digital transmission will have
> information discarded before it is even broadcast, so even with "perfect"
> reception you can *never* obtain a replica of the original signal.

That's a fallacy. First, if you can't perceive it, then losing it isn't
a problem. Second, I have several stations that commit 19.3Mbps to a
single 480i stream. Although technically lossy, the reality is that it
is as identical to the original as any display could ever reproduce.

--
Jeff Rife | "Hey, Brain, what do you wanna do tonight?"
|
| "The same thing we do every night, Pinky...
| try to take over the world."
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:18:37 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d3700397905fe2f989e45@news.nabs.net>, Jeff Rife wrote:
> Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > Yes, provided you accept the compromise that a digital transmission will have
> > information discarded before it is even broadcast, so even with "perfect"
> > reception you can *never* obtain a replica of the original signal.
>
> That's a fallacy.

What's a fallacy? The fact that information is discarded? Please explain how you
think lossy bit rate reduction works if information is not discarded. When the bit
rate of an SDI signal at more than 200Mb/s is reduced to less than 5 for
transmission, what happens to the information carried by those extra bits.

> First, if you can't perceive it, then losing it isn't
> a problem. Second, I have several stations that commit 19.3Mbps to a
> single 480i stream. Although technically lossy, the reality is that it
> is as identical to the original as any display could ever reproduce.

How can they be "lossy" and "identical to the original" at the same time? Would you
like to borrow a dictionary?

A loss is a loss, whether it is perceptible or not. In practice the losses are
designed for minimum perceptibility of course, but this doesn't always work.
Someting that is not perceptible on a single pass through the system with a
particular picture content may be quite objectionable under other circumstances.

Rod.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 4:20:37 PM

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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:18:37 +0100 Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
| In article <MPG.1d3700397905fe2f989e45@news.nabs.net>, Jeff Rife wrote:
|> First, if you can't perceive it, then losing it isn't
|> a problem. Second, I have several stations that commit 19.3Mbps to a
|> single 480i stream. Although technically lossy, the reality is that it
|> is as identical to the original as any display could ever reproduce.
|
| How can they be "lossy" and "identical to the original" at the same time? Would you
| like to borrow a dictionary?
|
| A loss is a loss, whether it is perceptible or not. In practice the losses are
| designed for minimum perceptibility of course, but this doesn't always work.
| Someting that is not perceptible on a single pass through the system with a
| particular picture content may be quite objectionable under other circumstances.

Perhaps he is confused by the "perfection" of the digital data path.
Were it the case that exactly and only one kind of compression were
used everywhere, and once compressed at production (with losses at
that point), the system could be designed so that no further losses
would ever take place all the way to the viewer's digital TV set.
In reality, of course, there is more than one kind of compression,
and video is decompressed and recompressed, perhaps several times,
in the path from production, through recording mediums, and through
broadcasting. Even when the same exact compression scheme is used,
compression, decompression, and recompression, can result in more
loss than just a single compression step. With different kinds of
compression, it is almost a certainty. And don't forget varying
schemes of pixel structure which will further affect how losses take
place in the chroma (U/V) channels.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:08:53 PM

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

Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> What's a fallacy? The fact that information is discarded? Please explain how you
> think lossy bit rate reduction works if information is not discarded. When the bit
> rate of an SDI signal at more than 200Mb/s is reduced to less than 5 for
> transmission, what happens to the information carried by those extra bits.

The fallacy is assuming those extra bits have any meaning. A lossless
compression (like ZIP, or FLAC & APE for audio) discards bits, but they
weren't necessary to reproduce the full data.

A lossy compression discards bits that aren't necessary to reproduced the
"perceivable" data. With a high enought bitrate, the "lossy" compression
might actually turn out to be truly lossless, and quite likely will be only
a few bits different.

I often take HD resolution BMP files, convert them to JPEG, then back to
BMP (which is what happens for display). I then compare the resulting
BMP to the original, and often there are less than 20 pixels (out of
nearly 2 million) that have different values from the original. That's
technically "lossy", but who cares?

> How can they be "lossy" and "identical to the original" at the same time? Would you
> like to borrow a dictionary?

Because if you can't see it (or your TV can't resolve it), they are as
identical as available sensors can determine.

--
Jeff Rife | "This? This is ice. This is what happens to
| water when it gets too cold. This? This is
| Kent. This is what happens to people when
| they get too sexually frustrated."
| -- Chris Knight, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:07:46 AM

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

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:08:53 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

|> How can they be "lossy" and "identical to the original" at the same time? Would you
|> like to borrow a dictionary?
|
| Because if you can't see it (or your TV can't resolve it), they are as
| identical as available sensors can determine.

And even in cases where you could see the difference in a side-by-side
comparison, you might never know there was a difference if you were to
look at the lossy copy by itself. If 1000 pixels are varied up or down
by 1 or 2 levels, it's unlikely to affect the perceived _consistency_
of the image. We're not talking about pixels being changed from black
to white.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:31:57 AM

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

In article <dasgp20vv5@news1.newsguy.com>, wrote:
> |> How can they be "lossy" and "identical to the original" at the same time? Would you
> |> like to borrow a dictionary?
> |
> | Because if you can't see it (or your TV can't resolve it), they are as
> | identical as available sensors can determine.
>
> And even in cases where you could see the difference in a side-by-side
> comparison, you might never know there was a difference if you were to
> look at the lossy copy by itself. If 1000 pixels are varied up or down
> by 1 or 2 levels, it's unlikely to affect the perceived _consistency_
> of the image. We're not talking about pixels being changed from black
> to white.

No, we're talking about the presence or absence of difference between original material
and what is broadcast. In the digital realm, such a difference is either present, or it's
not. There are no degrees of presence or absence.

This may not be important to the home viewer who only wants to watch the result after one
pass through the system, but it is important for all those concerned with handling such
signals to remember that coding errors can be cumulative.

Rod.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:48:21 PM

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

Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > And even in cases where you could see the difference in a side-by-side
> > comparison, you might never know there was a difference if you were to
> > look at the lossy copy by itself. If 1000 pixels are varied up or down
> > by 1 or 2 levels, it's unlikely to affect the perceived _consistency_
> > of the image. We're not talking about pixels being changed from black
> > to white.
>
> No, we're talking about the presence or absence of difference between original material
> and what is broadcast. In the digital realm, such a difference is either present, or it's
> not. There are no degrees of presence or absence.

Again, you missed the point made. Since MPEG-2 encodes *analog* pixel
values into the digital stream, the value might not match the original, but
it might be so close that nobody could tell the difference. A pixel with
RGB value (127,48,201) that gets encoded as (128,48,200) is not going to
look any different on even a perfect display.

So, in the case of MPEG-2, thee *are* "degrees of presence or absence".

--
Jeff Rife | "But as much as everybody loves you, there is
| one question that keeps coming up...how dumb
| WAS she?"
| -- Tempus to Lois Lane
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:44:33 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:48:21 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> > And even in cases where you could see the difference in a side-by-side
|> > comparison, you might never know there was a difference if you were to
|> > look at the lossy copy by itself. If 1000 pixels are varied up or down
|> > by 1 or 2 levels, it's unlikely to affect the perceived _consistency_
|> > of the image. We're not talking about pixels being changed from black
|> > to white.
|>
|> No, we're talking about the presence or absence of difference between original material
|> and what is broadcast. In the digital realm, such a difference is either present, or it's
|> not. There are no degrees of presence or absence.
|
| Again, you missed the point made. Since MPEG-2 encodes *analog* pixel
| values into the digital stream, the value might not match the original, but
| it might be so close that nobody could tell the difference. A pixel with
| RGB value (127,48,201) that gets encoded as (128,48,200) is not going to
| look any different on even a perfect display.
|
| So, in the case of MPEG-2, thee *are* "degrees of presence or absence".

But suppose you and I could tell the difference between (127,48,201) and
(128,48,200) on perfectly adjusted side-by-side monitors. Better yet,
suppose we could even tell the difference when looking at one monitor with
one of them, and then another monitor an HOUR LATER with the other one.
Now given a situation where a given pixel has a 50/50 chance of being off
by that much, would we be able to tell whether it is or not by just
looking at that picture alone? I very seriously doubt a person with even
so much skill as described would be able to ... when we don't really know
what the original is supposed to be.

Now take the average person. The changes can be more radical (several
luminance levels in high detail areas), and thousands of altered pixels,
and these average people would never know when looking at just the one
picture, that it isn't exactly like the original that they cannot see (or
remember).

So what if the errors are cumulative. Just a few accumulations won't
really make a picture that the average person could say "that is wrong,
even though I've never seen the original".

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:14:36 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> But suppose you and I could tell the difference between (127,48,201) and
> (128,48,200) on perfectly adjusted side-by-side monitors.

Go ahead and suppose, but it's just a mental exercise.

Although the video gamut for HDTV doesn't cover everything our eyes can see,
the difference between such pixels is impossible for a human to discern.

BTW, although the quoting seems to be messed up, I'm pretty sure we agree
that MPEG can be (when encoded correctly) as close to the source as a human
can distinguish.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TiVoAndBeer.gif
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:20:14 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d3c42af9fa1ccd0989e5c@news.nabs.net>, Jeff Rife wrote:
> Again, you missed the point made. Since MPEG-2 encodes *analog* pixel
> values into the digital stream, the value might not match the original, but
> it might be so close that nobody could tell the difference. A pixel with
> RGB value (127,48,201) that gets encoded as (128,48,200) is not going to
> look any different on even a perfect display.

Yes, it won't look perceptibly different to a typical observer after one pass
through the system. This is not the only situation that has to be considered
however. An MPEG signal cannot be manipulated, combined with others and
re-encoded indefinitlely, as the errors build up each time. Despite the signal
being digital, it has a "generation loss" problem just as if it were analogue,
and to a broadcaster this is important. MPEG is suitable only for encoding the
final programme on the understanding that nothing further will be done with
it, nothing else.

> So, in the case of MPEG-2, thee *are* "degrees of presence or absence".

That's still nonsense. If there's a difference between original and copy, then
there's a difference. It may be small but it's present. A thing can either be
present or not present.

Rod.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:20:15 AM

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

Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> MPEG is suitable only for encoding the
> final programme on the understanding that nothing further will be done with
> it, nothing else.

This is (again) wrong.

Fox sends their HD/digital network feed at a broadcast-ready 15Mbps. The
station can pass it through untouched if they want to, but most add logos
before they do. This does *not* require a re-compression. It is done using
a part of the MPEG-2 spec that allows "splicing" an image to an existing
MPEG-2 stream.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm reading a great John Grisham novel...it's
| about a young Southern lawyer who fights an
| evil corporate giant."
| -- Dick Solomon, "3rd Rock from the Sun"
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:47:31 AM

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

>> MPEG is suitable only for
>encoding the
>> final programme on the understanding that nothing further will be done with
>> it, nothing else.
>
>This is (again) wrong.
>
>Fox sends their HD/digital network feed at a broadcast-ready 15Mbps. The
>station can pass it through untouched if they want to, but most add logos
>before they do. This does *not* require a re-compression. It is done using
>a part of the MPEG-2 spec that allows "splicing" an image to an existing
>MPEG-2 stream.

Does this mean that someone sufficiently clever, with access to the
MPEG-2 stream on the receiving end, can find the MPEG-"splice" and
remove it programmatically, thereby de-BUGing it, without screwing
up the program? Would this also worked on weather warnings (which,
if they aren't watched live or near-live, are rather pointless).

Gordon L. Burditt
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:47:32 AM

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

Gordon Burditt (gordonb.m2mru@burditt.org) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> Does this mean that someone sufficiently clever, with access to the
> MPEG-2 stream on the receiving end, can find the MPEG-"splice" and
> remove it programmatically, thereby de-BUGing it, without screwing
> up the program?

I believe so.

> Would this also worked on weather warnings (which,
> if they aren't watched live or near-live, are rather pointless).

Probably not, since there are limits to how much you can change the stream
using this technique, so I would suspect that it wouldn't be used for
weather warnings. You definitely couldn't use it to do things like
squeeze the video down and add a weather map, since that's not just an
overlay.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gi...
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 8:21:17 PM

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

>> Does this mean that someone sufficiently clever, with access to the
>> MPEG-2 stream on the receiving end, can find the MPEG-"splice" and
>> remove it programmatically, thereby de-BUGing it, without screwing
>> up the program?
>
>I believe so.
>
>> Would this also worked on weather warnings (which,
>> if they aren't watched live or near-live, are rather pointless).
>
>Probably not, since there are limits to how much you can change the stream
>using this technique, so I would suspect that it wouldn't be used for
>weather warnings. You definitely couldn't use it to do things like
>squeeze the video down and add a weather map, since that's not just an
>overlay.

The warnings I'm thinking of do things like sticking a county map
in one corner, with "T-Storm warning" and counties colored by whether
they're covered or not. Since this is static, and stays there for
several programs at a time, they could do it this way, I suspect.
Another technique is the scrolling text over the picture at the
bottom of the screen. I'm not sure they could use the same technique
for this. Generally they don't squeeze down the picture, although
I have seen that done.

Some analog stations seem to be using the technique of letterboxing
a 16:9 movie, transmitting it as 4:3, and when needed, sticking
weather warnings or ads in the lower letterbox bar. When they
convert it to digital for simulcasting it also ends up pillarboxed.
I suspect that some people watching the show on a 16:9 screen have
it "zoomed" (if their set provides this ability) so they don't see
these at all.

Gordon L. Burditt
!