HomeCinemaBanter
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)
-   High definition TV (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   I guess bob didn't want us to see this... (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=29822)

Bob Miller January 26th 05 11:09 PM
Frank Provasek wrote:
Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt.
Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the
year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an
anti-Kerry propaganda film


Don't agree with the Sinclair political agenda but do agree with their
engineering side.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller January 27th 05 12:23 AM
wrote:
Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws

to

include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to

charge

for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest

here.

Bob Miller



Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to
charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal
action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it.

If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free"
option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used
the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS,
FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time
ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same
time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC,
etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and
rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get
into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other
special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much
larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via
cable or satellite.

So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they
invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does
Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers.

It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical.

Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy
to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will
translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which
by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the
statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable
services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this
strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free
over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising
cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must
carry" mandate would give them a larger audience.

So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a
loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of
subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to
us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting!

What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What if
then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA. In
fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up the
population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means
free over the air broadcasting. Something they seem to have forgot about
a long time ago.

I hope Sinclair loses, (wins in my book) and I hope broadcasters lose
must carry of multicasting. These two events would refocus their
energies on their OTA spectrum which can't ever be bad.

Bob Miller

BTW it is confusing when you talk of over the air content being received
over cable isn't it.

[email protected] January 27th 05 05:17 AM
See in-line:


What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What
if
then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA.

I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable
companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are
broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they
are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable
companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to
the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will
leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals)
explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a
good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful,
legal and informative).

Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins.


In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up
the
population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means

free over the air broadcasting.

This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying
to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable
stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable
providers pay.

Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
for them.

They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.

Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV
infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are
reaping the beneifts of their investment.

But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the
mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair
wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with.
Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't
the right thing to do.

As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops
further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People
aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly
frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations.

Sonic January 27th 05 07:40 AM

wrote in message
oups.com...
See in-line:


snip
Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
for them.

The number one thing promoted by cable companies to increase cable
subscribers is DVRs. When enough fast forward button are in Americans homes
how much value will ad time loose. I'am not a Sinclair fan but his decision
not to give programing to anyone underminding his coperate value is fair on
his part.

They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.

Network programming is superior to a lot of cable programming and it HD
content is growing at a good rate. If they have the money to fill the extra
bandwidth with new or decent programming I could drop cable. OTA tuners will
follow the same price curve as any type tuner, but even now there worth the
cost to receive OTA. Being caught in the middle is unfortunate but if
there's enough complaints something will change.

Bob Miller January 27th 05 08:35 AM
wrote:
See in-line:



What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What

if

then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA.


I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable
companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are
broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they
are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable
companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to
the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will
leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals)
explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a
good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful,
legal and informative).

Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins.



In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up

the

population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means


free over the air broadcasting.


This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying
to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable
stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable
providers pay.

Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
for them.

They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.

Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV
infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are
reaping the beneifts of their investment.

But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the
mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair
wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with.
Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't
the right thing to do.

As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops
further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People
aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly
frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations.

They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with a
small sample of what is to come.

Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible
and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits
its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD
channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by
some other factor.

Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
Why do you think the CEA pushed for 8-VSB so hard. They openly talked of
it being handicapped with no mobile and how that was supposedly good for
HD. Was it? CEA seems totally uninterested in OTA now that they have
saddled it with 8-VSB. Wonder why?

COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200
and only because a Chinese maker decided to get their feet wet with
WalMart. Don't you think it will be strange when that 3rd world country
China has $10 DMB-T HD receivers which work far better than the $200
8-VSB receivers they are selling to us? Who is the third world country then?

No they have kept the lid on and called COFDM the delayer while the
truth is that 8-VSB has caused the delay and was meant to. But they can
do it only so long and I think their time is running out.

Bob Miller

[email protected] January 27th 05 04:06 PM
See in-line:

Bob Miller wrote:

They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with
a
small sample of what is to come.


If you're refering to services such as USDTV, well USDTV has been
around for a year or so now and I'm not seeing sings of growth. Where's
the public interest. It's not there yet.

Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations
possible
and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits

its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD

channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that
by
some other factor.

So for their investment in DTV infrastructure the OTA networks have
gained more channel bandwidth. You imply over MPEG-2 they can do 16 SD
channels at present, but how many HD channels can they deliver? Part of
your vision for this seems to require the scaling back of HD content in
favor of SD content, which I certainly hope doesn't happen.




Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one
yet????

I don't see the threat to cable/sat providers? OTA networks are in the
advertising and broadcasting business, you underestimate the services
infrastructure (enormous cost) they would have to build out to lease
equipment, perform maintence, set up billing department) at the very
least this would be a huge risk for them. What's more likely would be
for them to partner with companies such as USDTV and again, I'm not
seeing a success story with USDTV. To some degree OTA networks need
cable providers, to a lesser degree the opposite can be said.

I see the DTV transition as being something we're in the middle of.
Look at how many HD ready sets are being sold today vs a year ago. Look
at the price drops, look at the number of HD channels bein broadcast
today vs a year ago, if you can't see progress being made towards the
"transition" they are you selectively ignoring it.




COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is
$200...

Please stop preaching about COFDM, hopefully by now you realize it's a
lost effort (regardless of if you are right or wrong).

[email protected] January 27th 05 04:12 PM
Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the
script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke"
or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down
this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in.
Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be
advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can
see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather.

wmhjr January 27th 05 04:22 PM

You're nuts.

Way too much of the population just can't reliably get either 8-VSB or
COFDM content due to geographic constraints. That doesn't even begin
to consider the factor of range and signal variables particularly with
COFDM. I actually agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get a
healthy dose of reality. For example, your proposed solution would be
death to my area. To be clear - I will never, ever, be able to
reliably get OTA content that will ever under any circumstances compare
to cable or sat. Period.

I can respect the tenets of what you believe in, but can't accept the
gross misrepresentation of reality. Sorry.

Additionally, you completely fail to consider the effects of converged
networking. That alone kills your premise deader than the proverbial
doorknob.


Bob Miller Wrote:[color=blue]
wrote:
They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with
a
small sample of what is to come.

Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible
and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits
its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD
channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by
some other factor.

Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
Why do you think the CEA pushed for 8-VSB so hard. They openly talked
of
it being handicapped with no mobile and how that was supposedly good
for
HD. Was it? CEA seems totally uninterested in OTA now that they have
saddled it with 8-VSB. Wonder why?

COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200
and only because a Chinese maker decided to get their feet wet with
WalMart. Don't you think it will be strange when that 3rd world
country
China has $10 DMB-T HD receivers which work far better than the $200
8-VSB receivers they are selling to us? Who is the third world country
then?

No they have kept the lid on and called COFDM the delayer while the
truth is that 8-VSB has caused the delay and was meant to. But they
can
do it only so long and I think their time is running out.

Bob Miller


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr

Sonic January 27th 05 06:39 PM

wrote in message
oups.com...
Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the
script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke"
or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down
this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in.
Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be
advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can
see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather.

The producers of content benefit from product placement, that they share
this revenue with Network affiliates is not likely, but if I'm wrong please
correct me. Content producers and networks also generate revenue by selling
season episodes on DVD, again do station owners benefit? Viewers benefit,
well as long as they are not subjected to prime time infomercials
masquerading as TV shows, with the networks and producers (IMO) responding
to viewer demands for HD programming with much more zeal then content
providers.

Cable company have had the opportunity to weight their risk of shrinking
revenue associated with DVRs and acted, as they should, in their best
interest. While being offended by statements proclaiming individuals that
advance thru or leave the room during commercial thieves it does illustrate
the concern over digital recording. IMO suggesting that network providers
only motivation for asking cable providers to pony up is greed is not all
together fair. A business owner has to make decisions that will ensure that
the company will survive, that the free TV business model would change to
survive was never in question.

Bob Miller January 27th 05 11:35 PM
wrote:

See in-line:

Bob Miller wrote:


They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA. They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with a small sample of what is to come.


If you're refering to services such as USDTV, well USDTV has been around for a year or so now and I'm not seeing sings of growth. Where's the public interest. It's not there yet.

USDTV does not have MPEG4 or a receiver that is viable yet. I thought
they would fail by now. I thought they were crazy. They offer 11 or 12
channels and not the greatest selection even in those 12. They have all
the problems of 8-VSB so they have to pick cities like Las Vegas, Salt
Lake City and Albuquerque all cities with mountains around them, few
trees and in bowls.

However with MPEG4 they can offer more channels now and up to 16 SD
channels digital in a single analog SD channel. With 5th gen receivers
they can offer their service everywhere including such as NYC. Never
would have tried that before 5th gen.


Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by some other factor.


So for their investment in DTV infrastructure the OTA networks have gained more channel bandwidth. You imply over MPEG-2 they can do 16 SD
channels at present, but how many HD channels can they deliver? Part of your vision for this seems to require the scaling back of HD content in
favor of SD content, which I certainly hope doesn't happen.

No 16 SD channels with MPEG4 in two to three years, about 11-12 now with
MPEG4 as apposed to a maximum of 8 now with MPEG2 if you have the most
expensive equipment.



Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????

I don't see the threat to cable/sat providers? OTA networks are in the advertising and broadcasting business, you underestimate the services
infrastructure (enormous cost) they would have to build out to lease equipment, perform maintence, set up billing department) at the very
least this would be a huge risk for them. What's more likely would be for them to partner with companies such as USDTV and again, I'm not
seeing a success story with USDTV. To some degree OTA networks need cable providers, to a lesser degree the opposite can be said.

With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and
satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out. Note
that Sinclair is getting pretty aggressive with cable and HDTV. Expect
more. They are natural competitors with two different modes of delivery.
They should be competing not using the government like broadcasters are
to USE the competitors distribution network via must carry.

I see the DTV transition as being something we're in the middle of. Look at how many HD ready sets are being sold today vs a year ago. Look
at the price drops, look at the number of HD channels bein broadcast today vs a year ago, if you can't see progress being made towards the
"transition" they are you selectively ignoring it.

There is NO transition for OTA. What you are talking about is cable and
satellite. All those people buying HD sets, how many to watch DVDs? how
many will not even hook up to any HD source? Very few will hook up to
OTA. They will wait till they get a free HD receiver from their cable or
satellite company. The US OTA spectrum was used by fewer people last
year than the year before and that has been true for the last 40 years.
It is down to less than 10% IMO.


COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is

$200...

Please stop preaching about COFDM, hopefully by now you realize it's a
lost effort (regardless of if you are right or wrong).

COFDM and now maybe the Chinese modulation DMB-T are NOT lost efforts. I
expect a resurgence in interest regarding dropping 8-VSB in the next
year. Here is a letter from a top DoD video Engineer. The DoD was always
a strong proponent of DVB-T COFDM.

"A month or so ago I received an interesting briefing from a company
that wanted to use ATSC / 8VSB to deliver data to fire departments and other
first responders. They had no clue about who they were briefing (my
history, etc.), other than my current title. Their business plan was for
the fire engine to get all the way to the site of the fire where they
would stop then they would be able to receive data about where the fire
was. I
gently pointed out to them that once the fire department got to the
fire, they kind of knew where the fire was and would not wait around the
fire
engine for data to arrive - firemen tend to run into the fire first
thing when they get there. The point to the story is, as thick as these
folks
were, even they knew they could not receive 8VSB data while the truck
was moving (they must have tested their system prior to deployment - what a
concept).

To quote a lawyer from my swimming with sharks experience a few years
back, ATSC is great, it works 75% of the time for fixed locations. To
which my
boss's boss responded, we tend to like communications channels to work
somewhere in the high 90s.

I am now also enjoying HDTV via my DirecTV HDTV receiver, which also has
an integral OTA ATSC decoder. Lots of signal strength for my Fox channel
(signal bars full strength), but I can not watch it at all - the picture
breaks up so often that it makes any sports program (Redskins football,
etc.) too painful to watch (pain on multiple levels), so I have to watch
Fox via SDTV satellite, no OTA HDTV for me. I know why the reception is so
bad - a one story hill behind my house causes a large standing
reflection, which we noted long ago when my house was one of the ATSC DC
test sites.
8VSB does not work for me, never has, never will. I also can not
receive the local digital UPN station. The signal strength swings from
0 to 80+
every couple of seconds, which never gives the decoder a chance to lock
up and display a signal. So back to DirecTV for UPN at my house, no
HDTV Star
Trek Enterprise for me.

The COFDM proponents lost the political fight several years back, but
they were still right - 8VSB was a poor choice for our nation. Isn't it a
wonderful irony that 8VSB was added to the ATSC specification as a bone
to the last US TV manufacturer, which was subsequently sold to a foreign
company who now owns the patents on 8VSB. Simply lovely.

It was cool to read Voom is going to add hundreds of channels of
satellite based HDTV. It is cool to get local traffic and weather on my
XM satellite
radio now, and they even have emergency channel provisions now in case
things go stupid. Maybe the most cynical people I heard during the
8VSB/COFDM wars were right all along - the choice of 8VSB was a method
to kill over the air TV so everyone would move to cable and satellite
then the
OTA spectrum would be sold off once and for all. If all of the HDTV is
over satellite, and now the last uses for local service (local traffic,
weather, and emergency broadcasts) are replaced by satellite service,
why would we need local OTA digital service anymore? Inquiring minds
want to
know.

To my old friends on this list, hello, I've been away for awhile, busy
fighting a couple of wars recently. But my duties are changing soon, and I
am thinking about getting back into the digital Motion Imagery game.
Watch this space."


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com