| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:01:50 GMT Jo <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote:
| I don't know what is going on with the broadcaster or the government
| that they don't make any push to really get the DTV conversion going.
| Neither makes any real effort to inform the public. Broadcaster are
| dragging their feet on upgrading their equipment which causes, the
| government makes supposedly hard deadlines only to move them back.
Broadcasters are seeing that the viewing public is not upgrading to DTV.
There are 2 basic groups. The largest in most areas are cable system
subscribers. While the cable systems will have to use DTV receivers at
the head end once the analog transmissions cease, many are dragging their
feet on getting DTV installed there. Many of those that are putting in
DTV now are just converting it to SD analog for system distribution.
Broadcasters were promised the extended capacity of DTV (they can transmit
one HD program _and_ one SD program over the same 6 MHz channel, or 4 to 6
SD programs) but now cable systems are saying "no we don't want to carry
the full 6 MHz anymore". Most cable subscribers will get one program in
SD regardless of what the broadcaster transmits.
The other group, smaller in most areas, receive TV directly over the air.
While most of this group that is into big screen home theater systems has
ATSC receive capability, the rest either are not into that, or cannot
afford it. They have traditional size TVs, or smaller, and are waiting
for TVs with ATSC tuners to show up, or waiting for reasonably price ATSC
set top boxes, or just aren't aware of any of this, yet.
There are 2 fundamental source causes. One is lack of education, which I
think you have hit on with your remark about informing the public. The
other is that the manufacturers of consumer TVs are themselves doing the
foot dragging by refusing to put ATSC tuners in all new TVs of all sizes,
at a reasonable price. They are also refusing to sell separate STBs for
ATSC at a reasonable price. A mandate with teeth is needed.
| I really believe OTA TV has a genuine opportunity to make itself a
| primary provider of TV service to a large part of the population. Do
| the broadcaster not see it or not believe it? There are large amounts
| of people who only have basic cable to get a decent picture. If DTV is
| shown to be reliable with better picture quality than cable, cable tv
| would lose a noticeable percentage of its subscribers. Even if the
| broadcasters lose the must carry battle, if they offer other channels
| over their OTA multi cast, free, even more people would leave cable.
Large numbers of viewers will refuse to put up an outside antenna that is
necessary in quite many cases. They will stick with cable. Or maybe they
are using satellite instead. Don't expect a mass migration from cable to
OTA.
Sure, if there is programming OTA that isn't on cable, that might bring a
few people from cable to OTA. But they lose a lot of other stuff unless
they also keep cable, or switch to satellite.
We really need the Multicast Must Carry law to make this work. Since the
over-the-air spectrum space is a public asset, my position is that cable
systems should not be allowed to profit from using that content unless
they agree to the terms of it. And the terms should simply be "all or
nothing". So a McMC law should simply say, either carry every OTA channel
that qualifies, or don't carry any of them (this would then allow a
parallel build cable system to come in and do what cable's original
existance was based on and carry OTA to homes that can't get it well).
| I am thinking long term on this, roughly over the next 10 years. The
| increased exclusive viewership will lead to being able to charge higher
| fees for commercials which is more revenue - amortized cost = more
| profit. Just my take on the matter, I know that manufacturers and
| possible standards, are having an effect on the transition but the
| broadcaster and government must lead the charge if the DTV transition is
| going to work.
They need to enact the McMC law, plus also enact the law requiring all
TVs with tuners to have ATSC (regardless of screen size) at a reasonable
price, and to make sufficient models with tuners available so everyone
that wants one won't have to face the prospect of these models being sold
out (really just not being stocked) and be forced to buy a monitor and
separate box (which doesn't go well together at smaller screen sizes and
certainly not at all for portable stuff). Those that refuse should have
their non-DTV compliant products confiscated at the port of entry.
Everyone has to pay some price for this transition. Broadcasters are
having to front the cost of upgrading to DTV transmitters (and pay a
double electric bill while using 2 channels). Viewers are having to add
ATSC receive capability if they are in the OTA group. If they are cable
subscribers, they will likely have higher monthly fees due to the costs of
the cable system having to receive the DTV signals. So please don't feel
sorry for manufacturers if they are mandated to do the right thing here,
too.
I'm not sure about the satellite providers at this point. Maybe the McMC
law should apply to them as well for their "local channels" service.
Otherwise, they are probably the ones who will end up coming out of this
ahead.
There will be those who say it should all be done on a free market system.
Normally I support that concept. But there are a few exceptions, and
taking the steps to undo a 1940's design for TV broadcasting that horribly
wastes spectrum, and provide for new business models and vital emergency
communications systems, is not something that a free market in this case
would ever accomplish short of simply destroying OTA TV in about 30 to 50
years (way too late, anyway).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:37:59 -0500 tim@nocomment.com <tim@nocomment.com> wrote:
| Bruce Tomlin wrote:
|
|> In article <11mkop4qmrmf828@corp.supernews.com>,
|> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
|>
|>
|>>On 2005-11-03, Jo <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote:
|>>
|>>
|>>>I don't know what is going on with the broadcaster or the government
|>>>that they don't make any push to really get the DTV conversion going.
|>>
|>>Because so few people care about picture quality.
|>>
|>>Let's face it: For 95% of what's on TV (especially non-sports
|>>stuff), picture quality just doesn't matter. Most comedies and
|>>dramas would be just as good (or bad) in SD black and white as
|>>they would be in HD color.
|>
|>
|> The popularity of 6-hour VHS mode is a perfect example of this.
|
| Why, does 6-hour VHS mode only record in black and white?
Mine records in color. Hell, I even get all 3 primary colors sometimes.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:36:18 GMT Jo <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote:
| Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
|> OTA isn't an option for those of us who are blocked by hills or live in
|> rural areas.
|>
|> You might be surprised at the percentage of subscribers in the Los Angeles
|> market who do not have line-of-sight to Mt. Wilson (where are the
|> transmitters are located for the LA market).
|>
|
| This is one area where broadcaster could improve their delivery by
| setting up secondary transmitters, sort of like what cell phones have,
| to improve reception in very uneven terrain. Whether or not that is
| feasible, I don't know. But if broadcasters want a real slice of the
| pie again, they should really look to improve their DTV transmissions.
In rural hilly/mountainous areas, we have TV translators.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
"Jo" <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:62yaf.3653$Lv.1356@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: | Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
OTA isn't an option for those of us who are blocked by hills or live in
rural areas.
You might be surprised at the percentage of subscribers in the Los
Angeles
market who do not have line-of-sight to Mt. Wilson (where are the
transmitters are located for the LA market).
This is one area where broadcaster could improve their delivery by setting
up secondary transmitters, sort of like what cell phones have, to improve
reception in very uneven terrain. Whether or not that is feasible, I
don't know. But if broadcasters want a real slice of the pie again, they
should really look to improve their DTV transmissions.
|
We live in uneven terrain [behind two mountain ranges] and have had perfect
reception since 1999, using the first set-top-box that became available and
a $20 rooftop antenna, 13 miles from the transmitters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote
| Quote: | (secondary transmitters) are not feasible with the current system, except
by using other channels.
|
And, of course, they was never intended to be feasible. The ATSC engineers
who specified 8VSB knew perfectly well what the trade-offs were.
Even if they were "feasible", one small cell-phone tower proposed nearby 4
years ago has been
in litigation since. And the site is in the middle of the woods, the nearest
house is 500' away.
| Quote: | There are other, competing modulation schemes where this is entirely
feasible,
|
That's true, but you're ignoring the fact that those other systems have
extremely significant disadvantages.
| Quote: | as well as many other advantages, but despite performing well in real-world
tests,
|
In Australian forums, people complain they can't get solid reception at 20
miles distance.
Some people there are calling DTV a flop.
The British Freeview DTV industry is now strongly recommending CT100
(satellite-grade) coax for antenna installations- regular antenna coax
lacks the needed resistance to impulse interference.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/terrestrial/faq/
http://www.mediachannels.co.uk/cableandfittings.htm
| Quote: | have consistently been snubbed in favor of the current system, no doubt
more for financial and political reasons than based on technical merit.
|
COFDM transmission was "snubbed" by the ATSC to purposely screw those with
mobile datacasting interests. Oh, well... one can dream. ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:23:55 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
| It all has to do with the modulation. In talking to manufacturers about
| making 8-VSB receivers for us they all express initial incredulity that
| anyone would be interested in 8-VSB OTA receivers.
|
| The first words out of their mouth are always "do you really think there
| is a market for this in the US?".
Expect the subpoena to come your way. Be prepared to testify as to the
actual names of these manufacturer executives you spoke with. We'll get
to the bottom of why those guys are trying to derail the DTV market.
Thanks for letting me know I had the cause of the problem pinpointed.
| And we know that LG who would profit the most from royalties from 8-VSB
| dropped making OTA receivers unless as in the case of satellite they
| found a huge single point customer.
The investigation will probably need to focus on LG.
| In other countries this is not true. Broadcasters are advertising OTA
| DTV, manufacturers are making and promoting receivers and OTA is making
| an incredible recovery from analog days. This is true in every country
| using the COFDM modulation.
And thus it is being decided by the manufacturers. And that is wrong.
It's mandate time, with penalties as broad as confiscation of all product
entering the US ports.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
| Quote: | And with COFDM a simple repeater would solve the problem. And making
broadcasters pay attention to their OTA spectrum instead of lobbying for
multicast must carry you would have them panting to do it.
Bob Miller
|
"This is the opinion of Bob Miller and is driven by my desire to co-opt the
frequencies currently used by the successful implementation of HDTV OTA
broadcasting in the US to benefit my failed business plan. You can't expect
a reasonable discussion with me, but you can expect multitudes of off-topic
postings and rantings on how much better the US would have been if the DTV
broadcasting standard would have used a modulation scheme that would have
supported my business plan, and how other countries will leap over the US
real soon now since they're thinking of using my pet modulation scheme,
even though they're just getting started and their landscape, population
concentration, and culture are entirely different. I don't think you should
have free OTA unless the US switches to a different standard; instead you
should have to get your HDTV via cable or satellite so that the radio
frequencies currently wasted by free OTA HD can be sold off to the highest
bidder, except for those frequencies that are given to me so that I can
make a fortune broadcasting commercials to city buses, taxis, etc. Don't
ever forget that the sole reason for DTV is to benefit me, and that you're
too goofy to discern the difference between DTV and HDTV; even if you can
discern the difference, you really don't need it and shouldn't want it
unless you receive it via cable or satellite or by paying for encryped OTA;
that is unless we change the standard free OTA modulation scheme to my pet.
Don't bother to tell me I'm wrong or tell me how well you can receive the
current standard free OTA HD or provide any links that disagree with me
because I will simply claim that it's heresay or you're in the minority or
it's the result of a rigged test or, if any of those are too obviously not
the case, just ignore your post."
-From AVS forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
<Tim@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:436A6967.9DE05BBC@Backhome.org...
| Quote: | OTA isn't an option for those of us who are blocked by hills or live in
rural areas.
You might be surprised at the percentage of subscribers in the Los Angeles
market who do not have line-of-sight to Mt. Wilson (where are the
transmitters are located for the LA market).
|
Reception can be had, here's an article about it:
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/howto/405hdtv/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
In article <sOOdncKjnINLJPHeRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"David" <davey@home.net> wrote:
When you post something like that, you'd better have a MUCH better
attribution than that.
For example, each page in AVS forum has its own URL; why not just post
the URL?
Are you afraid to? Does it say something else you DON'T like? Or
doesn't it exist?
Until you provide the simple, indisputable reference URL that shows this
in full context, I'm going to believe that you just made it up out of
whole cloth.
Let's see what YOU'RE made of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
In article <dkhset227jl@news2.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:
| Quote: | In rural hilly/mountainous areas, we have TV translators.
|
Um, for what--to translate English to redneck?
"Yall liss'n here. Broadcasters year seein that the viewin public ain't
not upgradin ta DTV. There year 2 basic groups. The largest in most
areas year cable system subscribers. While the cable systems will havta
use DTV receivers at the hid en' one'st the analog transmissions cease,
many year draggin their foot on gettin DTV installed there. Many of
those that year puttin in DTV now year just convertin it ta SD analog
fer system distribution. Broadcasters wuz promised the extended capacity
of DTV (they can transmit one HD program _and_ one SD program over the
same 6 MHz channel, or 4 ta 6 SD programs) but now cable systems year
sayin "no weunz don't wanna carry the full 6 MHz anymore". Most cable
subscribers will git one program in SD regardless of what the
broadcasner transmits.
Ya reckon?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
In article <dkhrr2027jl@news2.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:
| Quote: | If they are cable
subscribers, they will likely have higher monthly fees due to the costs of
the cable system having to receive the DTV signals.
|
I'm counting on my cable company to to my downconverting for me, so I
can continue to have an easy TV for my wife and kids to use.
We'll see how THAT shakes out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-F081F7.10381905112005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
| Quote: | In article <sOOdncKjnINLJPHeRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"David" <davey@home.net> wrote:
-From AVS forum
When you post something like that, you'd better have a MUCH better
attribution than that.
For example, each page in AVS forum has its own URL; why not just post
the URL?
Are you afraid to? Does it say something else you DON'T like? Or
doesn't it exist?
Until you provide the simple, indisputable reference URL that shows this
in full context, I'm going to believe that you just made it up out of
whole cloth.
Let's see what YOU'RE made of.
|
It doesn't exist anymore. That posting was made in reponse to another of
bob's postings under his alias "Gear". The moderators deleted the entire
thread, but not until after I copied that particular amusing posting.
AVS deleted ALL of bob's postings after they realized what a compulsive liar
he is.
I think it's funny, and I think you are, too.
Thanks for asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
In article <5eOdnTVZp_UoQPHenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"David" <davey@home.net> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <sOOdncKjnINLJPHeRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"David" <davey@home.net> wrote:
-From AVS forum
When you post something like that, you'd better have a MUCH better
attribution than that.
For example, each page in AVS forum has its own URL; why not just post
the URL?
Are you afraid to? Does it say something else you DON'T like? Or
doesn't it exist?
Until you provide the simple, indisputable reference URL that shows this
in full context, I'm going to believe that you just made it up out of
whole cloth.
Let's see what YOU'RE made of.
It doesn't exist anymore.
|
Then I call bullshit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P T
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
The OP Jo wrote
| Quote: | I don't know what is going on ... that
they don't make any push to really get
the DTV conversion going. Neither
makes any real effort to inform
the public...
|
I did my part!
I hauled my Sammy 451 over to a friend;s apartment, then to my
neighbor's house. I knew both used antennas and had poor reception.
Both were very impressed. Signals were strong although we are 15-20
miles from the broadcasting towers, I only used a rabbit ears, and one
tv was in a basement.
It's all too complicated. My friends saw that they could buy a receiver
for $100 to $300. Plug on a rabbit ears, plug in power and 3 rca plugs,
and have crystal clear tv. THAT is a compelling demonstration for
someone with bad reception.
It's all too complicated, and the DTV story is lost among all the other
AV and home electronics info bombarding consumers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in