| Author |
Message |
Jo
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
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.
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.
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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grant Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:21 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
On 2005-11-03, Jo <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow!
at TAILFINS!!... click...
visi.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Tomlin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
In article <11mkop4qmrmf828@corp.supernews.com>,
Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:47 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
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).
Jo wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
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.
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tim@nocomment.com
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:37 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
Bruce Tomlin wrote:
| Quote: | 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
| 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).
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grant Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
On 2005-11-03, tim@nocomment.com <tim@nocomment.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
|
No, but the picture quality is noticably worse than the
standard VHS tape speed. And people just don't care. I'd have
to agree with them.
I'd pick SD B/W and a DVR over color HD without giving it a
second thought.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! LBJ, LBJ, how many
at JOKES did you tell today??!
visi.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:23 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
Jo wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
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.
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.
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?".
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.
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.
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:31 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
| 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).
Jo wrote:
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
| Quote: |
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Vaughan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:42 am 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.
|
It's not feasible with the current system, except by using other channels.
There are other, competing modulation schemes where this is entirely
feasible, as well as many other advantages, but despite performing well in
real-world tests, have consistently been snubbed in favor of the current
system, no doubt more for financial and political reasons than based on
technical merit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Vaughan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
"Jo" <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:y8taf.4865$8W.3916@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | 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.
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.
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.
|
This is a good question.
I think broadcasters would love to do this, but there is a problem. DTV
reception using the current modulation standard is iffy enough that they
won't reach a larger in-home audience that with analog TV. And mobile is
completely unworkable. Since mobile is going to be the fastest-growing
segment of video viewing by far, this is a significant limitation. This
means that the trend of more and more people viewing their station via cable
or satellite rather than over the air is likely to continue. (An unfavorable
must-carry decision that says the cable companies only have to carry one
channel rather than all sub-channels influences whether broadcasters choose
HD or multicasting. But effective local and mobile reception would have
similar effects as must-carry of all sub-channels, while making a business
model of actually competing with cable and satellite a possibility.)
If in-home DTV reception were better than it is and if mobile reception were
usable, then there could well be a market for each broadcaster to provide
6-8 channels over their local signal, and there might be huge investment in
it. I could see the most common cable channels (ESPN, CNN, MTV, etc.)
striking partnerships with local broadcasters so that in major metro areas
you could get 50+ channels over the air for FREE. (But they wouldn't be HD
for the most part.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Vaughan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
"Grant Edwards" <grante@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11mkop4qmrmf828@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | 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.
|
You may have a point, but not in quite the way you think. I agree, most
people don't care that much about picture quality. I believe most people
would rather pay less, or get more channels, than get HD (particularly if
they have a digital 480p option, and widescreen for movies, as an
alternative that gets them much of the way to HD quality while costing far
less). It's possible that people pushing for HD know this and thus don't
want local over-the-air reception to work well (which is the real problem)
because being able to reach a wide audience via terrestrial broadcast could
open up a business model where multicasting supplants HD (and where OTA
supplants cable and satellite). They would also likely oppose must-carry
rules that require all sub-channels to be carried for the same reason - if
cable companies had to carry all sub-channels, I expect many, if not most,
local broadcasters would move away from HD in favor of providing more
channels.
(Cable and maybe satellite companies of course would be happy if all local
OTA broadcast went away entirely, so seeing it not work very well at all is
just fine by them, and they'd be even happier if must-carry were for only a
single channel, but at SD quality only - basically what they have with
ananlog. Various competing mobile providers are also happy to see OTA mobile
reception not work, as they can then charge fees for use of their own
services.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tam/WB2TT
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:42 am 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.
|
You won't know how well it works until you try it. I just spent about 20
minutes watching KYW HD, channel 26 in Philadelphia, 65 miles away. Rock
solid with no dropouts. I suspect that many, if not most stations, are not
in their final configuration. KYW is CBS, which seems to be getting its act
together. Note that:
The previous owner left a VHF antenna with a rotator on the chimney . I
could not get a viewable picture on any Philly VHF station.
With my $25 Radio Shack UHF antenna (and Channel Master 7775 amp), I get 2
Philly UHF analog stations, but with snow.
When I turn the antenna toward Philadelphia, it is pointed at my roof.
My antenna at 20 feet, mounted on a vent pipe, is not clearing the hill SW
of me.
Tam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
Matthew Vaughan wrote:
| Quote: | "Jo" <Rosariom@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:y8taf.4865$8W.3916@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
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.
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.
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.
This is a good question.
I think broadcasters would love to do this, but there is a problem. DTV
reception using the current modulation standard is iffy enough that they
won't reach a larger in-home audience that with analog TV. And mobile is
completely unworkable. Since mobile is going to be the fastest-growing
segment of video viewing by far, this is a significant limitation. This
means that the trend of more and more people viewing their station via cable
or satellite rather than over the air is likely to continue. (An unfavorable
must-carry decision that says the cable companies only have to carry one
channel rather than all sub-channels influences whether broadcasters choose
HD or multicasting. But effective local and mobile reception would have
similar effects as must-carry of all sub-channels, while making a business
model of actually competing with cable and satellite a possibility.)
If in-home DTV reception were better than it is and if mobile reception were
usable, then there could well be a market for each broadcaster to provide
6-8 channels over their local signal, and there might be huge investment in
it. I could see the most common cable channels (ESPN, CNN, MTV, etc.)
striking partnerships with local broadcasters so that in major metro areas
you could get 50+ channels over the air for FREE. (But they wouldn't be HD
for the most part.)
As proposed by us in 2000 or even 1999. We wanted to use VP4 codec to |
allow more programming. We argued that MPEG2 was already out of date.
We proposed that receivers have chips like the Equator so that codec
upgrades would be possible OTA. Everything we proposed was ignored in
the rush to lock in special interest attached to 8-VSB and MPEG2 before
the computer industry could point out how outdated MPEG2, interlace and
8-VSB actually were.
MPEG2 and 8-VSB royalty owners paid the most in DC and won. Simple as
that. They were terrified that with each passing day the fact that they
were indeed outdated would be discovered and their royalty streams would
dry up or never start flowing. LG in particular was promising its
shareholder a $100 million royalty stream from 8-VSB.
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Getting the DTV word out |
|
|
Matthew Vaughan wrote:
| Quote: | "Grant Edwards" <grante@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11mkop4qmrmf828@corp.supernews.com...
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.
You may have a point, but not in quite the way you think. I agree, most
people don't care that much about picture quality. I believe most people
would rather pay less, or get more channels, than get HD (particularly if
they have a digital 480p option, and widescreen for movies, as an
alternative that gets them much of the way to HD quality while costing far
less). It's possible that people pushing for HD know this and thus don't
want local over-the-air reception to work well (which is the real problem)
because being able to reach a wide audience via terrestrial broadcast could
open up a business model where multicasting supplants HD (and where OTA
supplants cable and satellite). They would also likely oppose must-carry
rules that require all sub-channels to be carried for the same reason - if
cable companies had to carry all sub-channels, I expect many, if not most,
local broadcasters would move away from HD in favor of providing more
channels.
(Cable and maybe satellite companies of course would be happy if all local
OTA broadcast went away entirely, so seeing it not work very well at all is
just fine by them, and they'd be even happier if must-carry were for only a
single channel, but at SD quality only - basically what they have with
ananlog. Various competing mobile providers are also happy to see OTA mobile
reception not work, as they can then charge fees for use of their own
services.)
I disagree on what would happen with must carry. Broadcasters with |
multicast must carry would deliver both HD and SD multicast.
Broadcasters denied any must carry at all would deliver their in demand
HD to cable and satellite for cash just as they do now. Broadcasters
with in demand content do not invoke must carry they get paid for the
content whether HD or SD.
If denied all must carry expect broadcasters to sell their in demand HD
content to cable and satellite, rebroadcast it as the required by law SD
free and clear MPEG2 program and sell the HD version OTA using MPEG4
on some of the remaining spectrum along with a couple of SD programs as
a pay service.
Or they may rebroadcast the HD they sell to cable and satellite as a pay
service at 480P. That is what I suspect. They keep thier cable customers
and add new pay customers OTA. They may not even let their OTA free
customers get the SD version of in demand content. They may offer a
public service content on the required SD free program channel.
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in