|
|
"Bob Miller" wrote in message nk.net... ... ... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception. ... ... Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions, and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed, I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile reception of digital TV is a requirement. Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices. Why? What is it about digital TV and mobility that attracts you? Even if I wanted to watch TV while walking down the street, I could do that with a small analog TV from Radio Shack. Analog mobile TV has been possible for decades. What is it you want so badly from digital mobile TV that I can't get with the analog Radio Shack device (if I actually wanted such a device)? The DTV standard in the US, and standards around the world, made high definition a central feature of digital TV, though not the only feature. The small mobile screens you speak of certainly would not be used for high definition content. So - I would agree with others on this newsgroup that high definition is of little interest to you, at least with regard to digital mobile TV. In addition, though I love good programming when it can be found on TV, I have to make a conscious effort while at home to turn the TV set off or else I might "vegetate" in front of the "boob tube". Too many homes have families that are zombie-like in front of the TV with the result that simple communication between family members becomes rare. Sometimes you just have to turn the TV off to allow normal human interactions to go on. When I leave my house, I want to see the world, to see people, and perhaps talk to people. If I have my face buried in some mobile TV, I am as much a zombie as the person who is hypnotized by his TV in his living room. If I'm watching a mobile TV, I won't see the world and I won't see people. Sometimes, I go to a club near to where I live - to get out of my house, and to socialize. From time to time, the club owner turns on their TV, simply so that the club does not appear quiet and "dead". I always ask him to turn it off. I explain that the reason I am at the club, and the reason that I left my house, is that I want to interact with the world, and socialize with people ...*and* get away from TV. I explain that if I wanted to watch TV, I would have stayed at home - by myself. So, Bob, help me understand who would want or need mobile TV, and why. I'm just not getting it. |
In article ,
"Neil - Salem, MA USA" writes: "Bob Miller" wrote in message nk.net... ... ... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception. ... ... Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions, and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed, I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile reception of digital TV is a requirement. Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices. Why? The big market for mobile TV would be on mass transit, where there would be an additional revenue stream for the mass transit agency and a new business for Bob. This would probably entail Jerry Springer with tampon/condom commercials interspersed. Any claim of 'childrens' entertainment would neglect the vast superiority of nicely reviewed and controlled DVDs that play very well on the SUV video screen(s). (Imagine letting your kids choose between Jerry Springer and Powerpuff girls... Bob is 'Jerry' and most real world people prefer their kids seeing powerpuff, knd or even spongebob.) For 'news' and other timely info, the good old (and safe) radio works great. More visual distractions for the driver just won't be well received in our society. John |
Neil - Salem, MA USA wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message nk.net... ... ... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception. ... Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions, and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed, I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile reception of digital TV is a requirement. Not a requirement a necessity. Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices. Why? What is it about digital TV and mobility that attracts you? Even if I wanted to watch TV while walking down the street, I could do that with a small analog TV from Radio Shack. Analog mobile TV has been possible for decades. What is it you want so badly from digital mobile TV that I can't get with the analog Radio Shack device (if I actually wanted such a device)? But you can't watch analog TV while walking down the street after analog turnoff. That small market of free mobile TV goes away after analog turnoff. And while it exist today as you say one reason it is small is because it works badly like all analog TV. Remember the reason for cable was originally to offer better reception of NTSC. Many would argue today that cable and satellite exist because of the thousand channels they can deliver. I disagree, far fewer channels OTA today would put both out of business if they could be received anywhere anytime. The DTV standard in the US, and standards around the world, made high definition a central feature of digital TV, though not the only feature. The small mobile screens you speak of certainly would not be used for high definition content. So - I would agree with others on this newsgroup that high definition is of little interest to you, at least with regard to digital mobile TV. The mobile screen shows the programming first not the resolution. Anyone would opt for higher resolution if they can have it but the primary reason for TV is the story, the game not the resolution. You want to see the game first and then if it is possible and not too much of a chore you will go for better resolution. That is and will be true of cell phone reception. It is the biggest argument I have against the Qualcomm and Crown Castle cell phone DTV ventures I have. They will reduce resolution to fit the cell phone and increase programming. I think there is a bigger market for higher resolution programming for all size screens. For example the cell phone of the future will receive an HD res program and either show it on its own small screen or allow you to watch it on a pocket projector, a heads up display, a laptop or any size screen including an HD set. In addition, though I love good programming when it can be found on TV, I have to make a conscious effort while at home to turn the TV set off or else I might "vegetate" in front of the "boob tube". Too many homes have families that are zombie-like in front of the TV with the result that simple communication between family members becomes rare. Sometimes you just have to turn the TV off to allow normal human interactions to go on. When I leave my house, I want to see the world, to see people, and perhaps talk to people. If I have my face buried in some mobile TV, I am as much a zombie as the person who is hypnotized by his TV in his living room. If I'm watching a mobile TV, I won't see the world and I won't see people. Sometimes, I go to a club near to where I live - to get out of my house, and to socialize. From time to time, the club owner turns on their TV, simply so that the club does not appear quiet and "dead". I always ask him to turn it off. I explain that the reason I am at the club, and the reason that I left my house, is that I want to interact with the world, and socialize with people ...*and* get away from TV. I explain that if I wanted to watch TV, I would have stayed at home - by myself. So, Bob, help me understand who would want or need mobile TV, and why. I'm just not getting it. No argument with most of what you say, I agree. But we are talking about the survival of OTA free broadcast TV. It has already shrunk from 100% of viewers to something from 15% to 4.6% who rely on it for TV to the highest of 40% of homes who have at least one TV set still hooked up to an antenna, digital or analog though they don't depend on it. This has nothing to do with the TV culture we live in, only whether OTA free TV will survive the digital transition. The other subject is another discussion in which I think we both agree. So if a broadcaster today has say 15% of his viewers dependent on OTA and that number is declining or as some are now saying in the House Commerce Committee it has hit bottom at 4.6% who actually rely on OTA and can't afford cable or satellite, what makes you think they will survive? They are on life support as it is. The feeding tube is must carry on cable. If the number can't go any lower and it is NOT rising why are we protecting this OTA free thing as the Chairman of the FCC asked. And now I might add it is the elephant in the room at the House Commerce Committee. Let me put it this way if must carry was overturned by the courts would most TV stations in the US survive? Could they pay their electric bills? The best content would go directly to cable and satellite and the transmitters and their cost would be eliminated in many markets don't you think? The best use of the spectrum broadcasters use for channels below 51 is NOT to deliver a signal to the local cable company. So it would find its best use if must carry, an artificial construct created by the political power of broadcasters to protect themselves from competition, went away. In a world that has abandoned OTA reception by at least 85% and possibly as much as 95.4% would the best use of the spectrum be to broadcast to fixed receivers found in your living room? When that venue is already being attacked by a new service, broadband Internet, that will also compete for fixed reception in your living room. What do the numbers have to get to before someone says hey I have a better idea. We could use this spectrum to do X or Y or Z. And X, Y and Z all have to do with delivering data to customers where ever they are. That BTW includes in their living rooms. You don't lose the living room by making reception ubiquitous. You only expand your market to everywhere. And everywhere is something cable and satellite can't do or do competitively. For example satellite can deliver mobile if you have an expensive antenna and even then it will be excruciatingly line of sight. No building or trees can get in the way. Satellite only works for a portable solution in my book unless you build a terrestrial repeater system like XM or Sirius did which could make it truly mobile but only in cities where the repeaters are and then you really have a terrestrial system. So when I say mobile I mean to extend your coverage to all markets, fixed, portable and mobile. I am not talking about ONLY mobile and ONLY while you are moving. I am talking about simple easy reception everywhere on a multitude of receivers of all sizes. I am talking about OTA using its strength to compete with cable and satellite. I am saying that if they don't do that then what we have is a failed OTA that pretends to be alive with the fig leaf of must carry. In other words a massive waste of spectrum. The question for Congress then becomes why? Why not just invent another figment to allow broadcasters must carry on cable without the need for any spectrum. Then they could have the best of both worlds. Lots of money for selling off the spectrum to those who would use it to maximize its potential and broadcasters that would not have to pay electric bills for transmitters that broadcast to no one. They have a very difficult task legally with that solution since the courts will see though the fiction a lot easier if there are no transmitters used as a fig leaf. Remember this Congressional must carry allusion was only held up by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 and the deciding vote was very iffy. If the must carry laws go back to the Supreme Court with multicasting added to them and the modern reality that even fewer people depend on OTA than was true before and you can expect that the whole must carry concept could be overturned. Now as to your and my lack of need for mobile TV. The reality is that most of the world will have mobile TV on cell phones, lap tops and DVD players as well as just mobile TV sets in the coming years. This will not be your daddy's analog mobile TV. This will be true in the US also with at least four ventures in the works. These ventures will first address the lucrative and trendy cell phone market but will very quickly be in all vehicles and then they will attack broadcasters directly both cable and satellite. And I predict that these new age broadcaster will align themselves with broadband Internet seamlessly both tirelessly and fixed in your living room. The dinosaur that is 8-VSB DTV to fixed receivers which already looks ancient to me will look ridiculous to the next generation if they are ever even aware of it. How many of those under 30 today are aware of OTA TV or DTV? I remember showing by daughter when she was 15 when we had a cable outage that you could watch TV with an antenna. She was amazed. That is the fate of ATSC 8-VSB. That is what it was designed for, to only emulate NTSC and I am afraid that as designed it is doing a good job of emulating the death rattle of analog TV and simply joining the downward spiral already in place. In other countries both HD and mobile and easy reception are all being addressed and OTA TV is having an incredible rebirth. Not here. We need the same thing they have, a modulation that offers easy plug and play reception on inexpensive receivers that work anywhere mobile, fixed or portable. Bob Miller |
Phil Ross wrote:
Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its internal receiver was made useless. People have known about the switch to digital since the late 1990's, or at least have been told about it in various forums, and have been making purchases accordingly. I doubt very seriously that Congress or the FCC are going to change directions this far into the game, especially when your proposed modulation scheme has its own set of problems. I could see the reaction when folks that have made a huge investment in HDTV equipment are forced to replace their equipment again, and suddenly have new reception problems because of impulse noise, etc. I, for one, would become very political if I actually thought that your dreams and schemes were anything but the fantasy of a failed businessman who can not accept the fact that he backed the wrong horse in a technological gamble. If we change modulations or not people will become very aware of the difference between COFDM and 8-VSB. There will be other OTA broadcasters using COFDM and the BS about its problems will be put to rest. Many who have given up on OTA DTV or who suffer in silence because they think it is their fault for not being smart enough will be amazed at OTA digital reception on cell phones, laptops etc. that will be far better than 8-VSB. We were not the only ones who picked COFDM, others include ABC, NBC, Pappas, Sinclair, Granite and others who were intimidated into silence by our Congress. Our business has not failed. It has not started and not because we picked the wrong horse. We picked the right one. Our plan does not require any of the spectrum used by broadcasters and I would be very happy if they were stuck with 8-VSB as a businessman if we at the same time could use the spectrum we have purchased. We cannot because broadcasters who were given their spectrum for free still squat on the spectrum we purchased and paid for. It is the digital transition being stuck that keeps us from launching our venture. It is broadcasters being stuck with 8-VSB that holds us back not us being stuck with 8-VSB because we are not. We can use COFDM. We just can't use our spectrum. 8-VSB holds up competitors from using spectrum to compete with current broadcasters, cable and satellite. That delay is what the transition to digital was all about from day one back in 1986 and it is still working very well. Bob Miller |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote: From Digital Spy forum http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=205206 MRDAB writes... "Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and is very happily picking up all muxes. I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield" Snip... The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater, but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info). P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC?? Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good. Another Item. Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles?? Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005.. Another BM plant? One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts. But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group with his meanderings. |
Tim Keating wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: From Digital Spy forum http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/...d.php?t=205206 MRDAB writes... "Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and is very happily picking up all muxes. I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield" Snip... The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater, but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info). P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC?? Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good. Another Item. Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles?? Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005.. Another BM plant? The UK is semi-metrified. Distances are in miles and speeds are in miles per hour. At least they were when I was in Norther Ireland and Scotland last fall. One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts. But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group with his meanderings. Nope. It never does. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
SAC 441 ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Chicago,New York City,Houston TX ,Detroit,MI and others represent challenges to that kind of receptivity that is not evidenced in the UK perhaps maybe save for London. Although Houston does have a decent number of tall buildings, there aren't many residences close to those buildings. It's much more of a "suburbs" city as far as TV reception is concerned. Although the city proper is huge, the tall buildings are only in the central business district. On the other hand, cities like Las Vegas that have sprawl of the "business district" also have problems like you mention. Boston can also be bad, as there are many residences in close to the taller buildings. -- Jeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFri...rCustomers.gif |
Phil Ross ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its internal receiver was made useless. This is also a case where DirecTV probably would *not* step up and provide free replacements for the 1,000,000+ HD receivers for their subscribers unless they got some cash from the government to offset their costs. -- Jeff Rife | "Oooh, I love children... | they taste like chicken." | | -- Heddy Newman, "Herman's Head" |
Matthew L. Martin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Bob Miller wrote: They depend totally on must carry. Sooner or later Congress is going to notice that they are simply not using those channels below 51. Really? What makes you think that they are ignorant of the uses of that spectrum. Bob keeps spouting the myth about "broadcasters depending on must-carry", when the reality is that only a very few stations in most markets ever invoke "must carry" on DBS or cable. Any ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, or PBS station has no problem getting their signal carried without "must carry". Only low-value stations seem to have this problem. For those stations (home shopping channel repeaters, etc.), I have to admit that I agree with Bob that "must carry" is the only thing keeping them going. Of course, one of Bob's pet networks--PAX--is also in the same boat because their management got greedy. Most cable and DBS providers now have both a local *and* the national PAX channels, so the local affiliates basically got screwed by the parent network. -- Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness; | because he was moral they called him insane. | Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor; | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain." | -- Rush, "Cinderella Man" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com