wmhjr wrote:

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.

Range? The supposed power advantage of 8-VSB is being definitely put to
rest by Chinese test ongoing across China. COFDM with its latest
algorithms (COFDM is constantly improving to) now has a 2.5 db advantage
or almost 100% over 8-VSB. I will post more specific results as I get them.

As to signal variables I don't know what you are talking about. The
worst "geographical constraints" are places like New York City and this
video show COFDM working all over that city Mobile from ONE 100 Watt
amplifier where 8-VSB is not receivable with special antennas and
800,000 Watts.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv


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.

Where do you live? Our solution covers the entire US with a strong even
signal at a far far higher power level than satellite and far more
ubiquitous than current OTA. And with content that WILL compare
favorably with cable and satellite and at less cost.

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

Your reality not mine.

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

We fancy ourselves part of the converged networks of the future. An
adjunct not a dinosaur. We consider our place in the converged networks
of the future all the time as I have mentioned here often.\

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:

With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and
satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out.

But where are these 5th generation tuners? I know LG has one that I
believe is exclusive to some of their 2005 model HDTVs. Your case is
basicly that 5th generation tuners pave the way for Sinclair and other
broadcasters to break free from cable, but why? and how?

4th generation tuners are still $200 and People who are just now buying
sets have more options (the 8VSB integrated sets are finally starting
to become at least as common of HD Ready sets, but most of these are
4th gen tuners from best I can tell.

So let's say three years from now all HDTV sets sold include 5th gen
8VSB tuners and let's even say that external 8VSB tuners will have
dropped to around $40 by then and let's take it a step further and say
that broadcasters have begun offering 16 channels OTA each by that
time. Explain how exactly the OTA broadcasters are going to compete
with cable? The only way they could compete is if they had
subscribers. If they charged a monthly fee then free OTA goes away
entirely (bad), but if they do that then they become a services company
and have to build out the infrastructure to handle all of this. They
would also **** off all of the public, because they would have elimate
FREE OTA TV all togeather -and- they would be forcing the US public to
pick betweeen NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.. and the cable stations. That
makes no sense what so ever... it doesn't make good business sense. If
they were competitors the idea thing to do would be to charge one other
to carry the networks they own. If I understand correctly this is what
happens now with cable/sat companies.

If all of this content is offered for FREE OTA then again, they are not
competing with cable, everyone would just have both. Some people may
opt to leave their cable providers, but if the networks were wise they
would offer their channels to any subscription based carrier they could
find as it will widen their audience (it will always widen their
audience until 8VSB tuners are free, because not everyone will have
one), again if the OTA networks aren't charging a subscription FEE they
are not competing with sat or cable. You could argue they are for
advertising dollars, but the local networks have had them beat their
for years.

Cable companies are already building strategy against something like
this. Time Warner offers digital phone (VoIP), digital cable and high
speed internet for one flat monthly fee (discounted slightly to
subscribers of all three services). In addition to High Definition DVR
they have extended their on demand content to include about 100 free on
demand programs each month. They have also recently added High
Definiton on demand movies.... If OTA networks wanted to charge for
service and compete the only way they will be able to is to appeal to
the bottom end of the market.

I'd love to hear your response.

You did not answer the question about how customers are going to get
these 5th gen 8VSB recievers to make all this work, in fact you
diverted to USDTV like services which have no future as the failure of
USDTV has shown. For you concept to even be considered as plausable
this question you would need a solid answer to this question and you
don't have one.


When I mentioned that customers would have to pick cable or local,
you've said they wouldn't pick they would simply drop cable (which of
course would be picking). You suggest the local networks are going to
create 400 something new channels in the next four-five years (is that
your time frame, I don't think you've given one, but you're implying
near future best I can tell), not going to happen.... Look at how long
it's taken the cable companies to get it right (and I'm not saying they
have it 100% right), but out of 350+ channels I have I have a select
10-15 that are watched in my household regularly, my mother in law has
a different set of 10-15, my brother yet another set. You see we don't
need 350 channels, but it's taken cable a long time to do it right.
Where is their funding going to come from to create an additonal 350
channels? Why is advertiser X going to pay the OTA networks new
counterpart to ESPN (which according to you will be a new subscription
based service) for advertising when ESPN has been proven for a long
time. If the networks charge for these new channels that you envision
THEY are starting at ground zero, they have to prove themselfs... They
will fail.

In order to provider 300+ stations the cable/sat companies "share"
networks (CNN, ESPN, A&E, etc...), I asume by charging one another
broadcasting rihgts to the networks they own. If a customer selects
satellite or cable, for the most part they are getting the same choice
of networks... To assume local OTA can just magicly create new
counterparts to all these statons, have them compete and win is
irrational. Explain exactly how they could do this? Don't jump around
the question as you have the 8VSB.


Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they
own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the
means
to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back
customers you have lost over the years to cable?

It only makes sense if the OTA networks charge, otherwise they haven't
lost anything when their content is broadcast on cable. How have they
lost? They only lose if the cable company is collecting a fee they
could be collecting themselfs.. then again, that's not FREE
television. Regardless of how you position this, your stance is
anti-Free High Defintion OTA programming. Which is bad for the
industry, why should customers have to pay more for High Defintion
content... Your thoughts are more along the lines of why shouldn't they
have to pay...


No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content
but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and
offering a less expensive package.

I never disagreed with that, if they are charging any fee then they are
most definately competing... but if they charge a fee they still must
incure the cost of becoming a services company... From a customer
support department to a accouting office to contracting maintence
techs.. There is a huge cost their that you ignore.. and to really
compete they would have to provide all the services of at least a
satellite provider.


They CAN'T by law charge for the free
SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel
now.
OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters
if
they sign up as subscribers just like cable.

All high level details... explain to me how they will get these 8VSB
5th gen tunners into homes, explain how they will magicly create these
300+ channels, explain how they are going to steal advertising and
subscribers from cable. In your mind the pricing is everything, You
position your ideas as visionary, but they aren't. They are old school
thinking. By integrating phone, high speed internet and subscription
televison services

There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with
cable
on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected
for
years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises.
There

If you see a "flood" on the horizon, I challenge you to name five right
now. Broadband cable has had competion for years ISDN lines were
available long before, and DSL is available now (often for cheaper I
might add), yet still DSL falls behind, because it's not consist, it's
not realable. In Houston TimeWarner is already setting up wireless
access points around the city for their subscribers, cable companies
have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they
can combine services and provide a discount.

-Jeremy